The  Liquor  Problem 
IN  Russia 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/liquorprobleminr01john 


The  LIQUOR 

PROBLEM 
IN  RUSSIA 

By 

WILLIAM  E.  JOHNSON 

Author  of 

*‘Tbe  Federal  Government  and  the 
Liquor  Traffic” 

u 

151237 

1915 

THE  AMERICAN  ISSUE  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

WESTERVILLE,  OHIO 


Copyright  1915 

The  American  Issue  Publishing  Company 


j-r 


FOREWORD 


<o 


volume  is  one  result  of  studies  that  I began  on 
Russian  social  problems  in  1913,  when  I visited  that 
m V#  \ country  with  the  intent  of  doing  some  muckraking 
J in  connection  with  the  vodka  monopoly.  I did  not 
carry  out  my  original  purpose,  for,  wherever  I 
went,  I felt  a powerful  undertow  that  indicated 
better  things  to  come.  The  greatest  men  in  Russia  had  recog- 
nized the  national  mistake  and  were  thinking;  and,  when  a Rus- 
sian begins  to  think,  something  is  apt  to  break.  The  greatest 
newspapers  of  the  country  were  publishing  accounts  of  the  fail- 
ure of  the  monopoly  enterprise.  Its  sponsors  and  promoters  were 
turning  against  it.  The  monopoly  statistics  were  referred  to  as 
the  “drunken  statistics.”  It  was  in  the  air  that  great  things  were 
to  happen,  but  the  crash  came  before  the  time  dreamed  of  by  the 
most  optimistic.  The  monopoly  was  overthrown  by  the  exi- 
gencies of  war,  but  its  days  long  since,  like  the  days  of  serfdom 
seventy-five  years  ago,  had  been  numbered.  The  same  causes 
that  precipitated  the  war  and  the  death  of  the  monopoly  also 
precipitated  this  volume. 

A few  words  of  explanation  seem  necessary.  Because  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Russian  alphabet  and  vocabulary  sounds, 
there  is  much  variation  in  the  spelling  of  Slavic  words  when 
done  into  English  by  current  writers.  No  system  of  uniform 
rendering  has  been  agreed  upon  by  English  translators,  and  a 
great  variety  of  English  spelling  is  the  result.  For  instance,  take 
the  name  of  Doctor  Grigoriev,  the  editor  of  the  Petrograd  tem- 
perance monthly,  Viestnik  Tresvosti  {Temperance  Messenger  or 
Temperance  Courier).  The  Russian  rendering  of  his  name  is 
AoKTopii  rpHropbeei,  It  may  be  spelled  into  English  as  Grig- 
orieff,  Grigoriev,  Grigorieu  or  Grigoriew.  It  may  be  found 
translated  into  English  in  either  of  these  ways.  I have  chosen 
the  spelling  Grigoriev  and  have  rendered  all  Russian  names  of 
the  same  Slavic  termination  in  the  same  way.  Further,  where 
Russian  words  are  rendered  into  English  with  two  or  more  dif- 
ferent spellings,  each  of  which  is  equally  authoritative,  I have, 
in  the  interest  of  simplified  spelling,  used  the  shorter.  For 
instance,  I have  spelled  veche  instead  of  vetche  and  Duma  instead 
of  Douma.  Conforming  to  the  taste  of  Slavic  scholars,  I spell 
Tsar  instead  of  Czar. 


151237 


As  the  outcome  of  the  war,  the  name  of  the  Russian  capital, 
St.  Petersburg  was  changed  to  Petrograd.  To  avoid  confusion, 
this  pariicular  city  is  always  referred  to  as  Petrograd,  throughout 
the  book,  regardless  of  the  date  of  reference. 

The  Russian  dates  throughout  this  volume,  so  far  as  they 
can  be  identified,  are  “Old  Style,”  conforming  to  the  Russian 
calendar,  which  is  thirteen  days  behind  our  own.  In  the  case  of 
dates,  other  than  those  of  Russia,  the  “New  Style”  is  followed. 
In  other  words,  I adopt  the  same  calendar  dates  used  by  the 
country  to  which  the  item  or  event  occurs. 

This  will  account  for  some  apparent  discrepancies  of  dates 
with  those  in  current  English  literature.  The  Russians  would  be 
glad  to  change  their  calendar  to  conform  to  that  of  the  rest  of 
the  world  only  that  such  a change  would  meet  with  powerful 
opposition  from  those  opposed  to  upsetting  the  numerous  feast 
days,  saints’  days  and  other  holidays.  The  Slav  would  not  suffer 
that  to  iiappen  for  any  cause. 

For  translations  and  many  helpful  suggestions,  I am  indebted 
to  Leo  Pasvolsky  of  the  editorial  staff  of  Russkoye  Slovo,  the 
excellent  Russian  daily  newspaper  of  New  York  City.  By  her 
careful  revisions  of  my  manuscript.  Dr.  Sarah  M.  Sherrick,  of 
Otterbein  College,  has  placed  herself  under  obligations  of  the 
reader.  She  has  had  a civilizing  and  restraining  influence  upon 
my  Arizona  English.  The  drawings  throughout  are  the  work  of 
Russell  S.  Henderson. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


Westerville,  Ohio,  March  25,  1915. 


CONTENTS 


THE  ROMANCE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  PEOPLE 

POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 

RUSSIAN  CHARITY 

THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 

THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 

THE  BALTIC  PROVINCES 

THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 

RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 

THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 

THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


NICHOLAS  II.  Frontispiece. 

MICHAEL  DIMITROVICH  TSCHELISHEV 
GRAND  DUKE  CONSTANTINE 
COUNT  SERGIUS  JULEVICH  WITTE 
NICHOLAS  DE  CRAMER 
GRAND  DUKE  NICHOLAS  NICOLAEVVICH 
DR.  MATTI  HELENIUS-SEPPALA 
MADAME  ALI-TRYGG  HELENIUS 
ALEXANDER  11. 

ALEXANDER  HI. 

THE  PRINCE  OE  OLDENBURG 

GRAND  DUKE  MICHAEL  ALEXIS,  THE  TSAREVICH 
M.  KOKOVSTOV 
CATHERINE  11. 

ALEXIS  MICHAELOVICH 
PETER  THE  GREAT 

GRAND  DUKE  SERGIUS  AND  HIS  WIFE 

A RUSSIAN  TROIKA,  A THREE-HORSE  CONVEYANCE 

NICHOLAS  11.  AND  HIS  FAMILY 

RUSSIAN  TYPE  PORTRAIT  OF  NICHOLAS  11. 

CHURCH  OF  THE  RESURRECTION,  PETROGRAD 

THE  IZBA  OR  HOME  OF  A RUSSIAN  PEASANT 

A CORNER  IN  OLD  RIGA 

HOUSE  OF  THE  “BLACK  HEADS,”  RIGA 

ARC  OF  FOUNTAINS,  PETERHOF 

MILKMAIDS  OF  KIEV,  THE  “HOLY  CITY”  OF  RUSSIA 

INTERIOR  OF  A SIBERIAN  (MINUSINSK  TRIBE)  HOME 

WINE  SKINS  AND  WINE  SHOPS  OF  TIFLIS 

THE  IMPERIAL  DUMA,  PETROGRAD 

NEVSKY  PROSPECT,  PETROGRAD 

HISTORIC  MEETING  OF  ALLIES’  FINANCIERS,  PARIS 

ST.  ISAAC’S  CATHEDRAL,  PETROGRAD 


JIICHAEL  DIMITROVICH  TSCHELISHEV 

DRY  LEADER  OF  THE  IMPERIAL  DUMA, 

WHO  PERSONALLY  AND  SUCCESSFULLY  INTERCEDED 
WITH  THE  TSAR  TO  DECREE  THE  PRO- 
HIBITION OF  VODKA 


s 


■".i?  • 


A , 


ri^ 


GRAND  DUKE  CONSTANTINE 

RULER  OF  THE  PROHIBITION  CITY  OF  PASVOLSK. 

IT  WAS  TO  HIM  THAT  THE  TSAR 
TELEGRAPHED  HIS  INTENTION  TO  DISCONTINUE  THE 
GOVERNMENT  MONOPOLY  PERMANENTLY 


COUNT  SERGIUS  JULEVICH  WITTE 

WHO  LAUNCHED  THE  RUSSIAN  VODKA  MONOPOLY 
AS  A FISCAL  AND  PHILANTHROPIC  MEASURE. 

IT  HAVING  FAILED  IN  ITS  PURPOSE,  HE  AIDED  IN 
BRINGING  IT  TO  AN  END 


a 


a 


NICHOLAS  DE  CRAMER 

RUSSIAN  NOBLEMAN,  MEMBER  IMPERIAL  COUNCIL, 
WHO.  WITH  COUNT  WITTE,  LED  THE  DEBATE 
IN  THAT  BODY  FOR  EXCISE  REFORM 


I 


EE 


GRAND  DUKE  NICHOLAS  NICOLAEVVTCII 

commander  of  RUSSIAN  TROOPS, 

WHO  ADVISED  THE  TSAR  TO  ABOLISH  VODKA, 
AND  WHO  EXPELLED  VODKA,  WINE  AND  BEER 
FROM  HIS  MILITARY  JURISDICTION 


'1 


DR.  MATTI  HELENIUS-SEPPALA 

MEMBER  OF  THE  FINNISH  DIET  AND  RECOGNIZED 
LEADER  OF  THE  TEMPERANCE  REFORM 
IN  SUOMI.  A FAMILIAR  FIGURE  AT  INTERNATIONAL 
TEMPERANCE  GATHERINGS 


:\IADAME  ALI  TRVGG  IIELENIUS 

LEADER  OF  WOMAN's  CHRISTIAN  TEMPERANCE  UNION 
OF  FINLAND.  FOR  A DOZEN  YEARS 
SHE  HAS  LED  THE  FINNISH  MATRONS  IN  THEIR  WAR 
ON  ALCOHOLIC  DRINKS 


A 


■i'- 


?? 


V 


,.v 


1 

f 


■ ‘'W 


9i 


ALEXANDER  II. 

IN  ADDITION  TO  ABOLISHING  SERFDOM 
THROUGHOUT  RUSSIA,  HE  ABOLISHED  THE  “FARMING 
system”  of  LIQUOR  LICENSING, 
SUBSTITUTING  A SYSTEM  OF  EXCISE  TAXATION 


ALEXANDER  III. 

THE  REAL  FOUNDER  OF  THE  MODERN  RUSSIAN 
ALCOHOL  MONOPOLY. 

IN  1885  HE  INSTRUCTED  HIS  MINISTER  OF  FINANCE 
TO  DEVISE  PLANS  FOR  THE  PROPOSAL 


THE  PRINCE  OF  OLDENBURG 

HEAD  OF  THE  PETROCRAD  “y.  M.  C.  A..”  RUN  IN 
CONJUNCTION  WITH  THE  GREEK  CHURCH, 

AND  ALSO  HEAD  OF  THE  PETROGRAD  TEMPERANCE 
(ORGANIZATIONS 


GRAND  DUKE  MICHAEL  ALEXIS,  THE  TSAREVTCH 

HETR  TO  THE  RUSSIAN  THRONE 
AND  PATRON  OF  THE  TEMPERANCE  ENTERPRISES 
AT  MOSCOW 


M.  KOKOVSTOV 

PREMIER  OF  RUSSIA,  WHO  SUCCEEDED  M.  STOI.YPIN, 
AND  WHO  DEVELOPED  THE  FINANCIAL  SIDE 
OF  THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 
TO  SUCH  AN  EXTENT  THAT  HE  WAS  DEPOSED  AND 
PETER  BARK  APPOINTED  IN  HIS  PLACE 


CATHERINE  11. 

SHE  INSTITUTED  THE  NOTORIOUS  “FARMING  SYSTEM’’ 
OF  LIQUOR  LICENSING  IN  I767, 

AND  COMPLETED  THE  ENSLAVEMENT  OF  THE  SERFS, 
ROBBING  THEM  OF  THEIR  REMAINING  RIGHTS 


ALEXIS  MICHAELOVICH 

SECOND  TSAR  OF  THE  ROMANOV  DYNASTY, 

THE  FIRST  RUSSIAN  MONARCH  TO  ATTEMPT  TO  STAY 
THE  TIDE  OF  DRUNKENNESS  BY  MEANS  OF 
GOVERNMENT  REGULATION  ( 1645-76) 


H 


s 


rn  U 

I 

y 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 

\ 

y 

y 
y 

y 

} 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 

^ PETER  THE  GREAT  ^ 

/ FOUNDER  OF  PETROGRAD.  AN  EXCESSIVE  DRINKER.  / 
HE  IMPROVED  THE  CONDITION  OF  WOMEN  AND  ^ 

y AND  ESTABLISHED  THE  DEATH  PENALTY  IN  / 

V HIS  ARMY  FOR  SWEARING  V 

I I 


GRAND  DUKE  SERGIUS  AND  HIS  WIFE 

HE  FOUNDED  THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  IN  MOSCOW. 
A TYRANT,  HE  WAS  KILLED  BY  A NIHILIST  BOMB. 
HIS  WIFE  FOUNDED  A CONVENT  AND  BE- 
CAME ITS  FIRST  SISTER 


.-  • ■ ,,  - I I 

.'  ..  :■  .k\  h- 


: • •:  '5-'? 


:*  S-- 


CHAPTER  1. 

THE  ROMANCE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  PEOPLE 

ONTRADICTORY  as  it  may  appear, 
there  exists  in  autocratic  Russia  a 
greater  degree  of  personal  liberty 
than  in  any  other  civilized  nation  on 
the  globe.  What  a man  does,  so  long 
as  the  interests  of  others  or  of  the 
government  are  not  directly  con- 
cerned, is  regarded  as  strictly  his 
own  affair;  how  much  a man  drinks 
is  nobody’s  business  so  long  as  he 
commits  no  outrage  against  proper- 
ty or  life.  The  Russian  never  dreams 
of  criticizing  a public  official  on  ac- 
count of  the  peccadillos  of  his  pri- 
vate life.  Rectitude  of  private  life 
is  not  essential  to  social  standing, 
not  that  shortcomings  of  this  sort 
meet  with  popular  approval,  but  be- 
cause they  are  regarded  as  the  affair  only  of  those  di- 
rectly concerned.  Censorship  of  the  stage  and  press 
exists,  in  theory,  only  for  the  protection  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  dynasty.  Yet  it  must  be  conceded 
that  in  a country  where  there  is  no  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  and  no  constitutional  guarantees  against  un- 
reasonable search  and  seizure,  grave  abuses  must  oc- 
cur. The  theoretical  protection  of  the  government 
frequently  results  in  extreme  cases  of  invasion  of 
what  are  considered  private  rights  in  a constitutional 
government.  But  beyond  this  theoretical  safeguard- 


St.  Peter's  and  *-  < 
St.  Paul’s,  ^ ^ 
Petrograd 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


ing  of  authority  there  lies  complete  liberty  of  thought 
and  action : there  is  no  Anthony  Comstock  to  inter- 
fere. Catherine  the  Great  is  no  less  a popular  heroine 
because  she  lived  the  kind  of  a life  that  would  have 
rendered  her  odious  had  she  dwelt  in  any  English- 
speaking  nation.  The  Slav  glories  in  the  wonders 
she  wrought  for  the  advancement  of  Russian  civiliza- 
tion and  power.  He  discusses  her  private  shortcom- 
ings in  the  affectionate  manner  that  an  American 
dilates  upon  the  quaint  yarns  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Americans  will  recall  the  visit  made  to  this  coun- 
try some  years  ago  by  Maxim  Gorky,  a recognized 
prophet  of  liberty,  a writer  and  thinker,  in  the  very 
front  rank  of  Russian  life.  He  was  in  heyday  world- 
wide popularity  and  America  prepared  to  receive  him 
with  open  arms.  Social  functions  and  lecture  appoint- 
ments were  everywhere  arranged.  But,  behold,  it  was 
discovered  that  his  female  companion  was  not  his 
wife  according  to  Anglo-Saxon  canons.  There  was 
forthwith  a national  scandal.  The  lecture  appoint- 
ments and  social  functions  were  not  only  canceled, 
but  Gorky  had  great  difficulty  in  even  finding  a hotel 
where  he  could  stay  over  night.  Being  repeatedly  re- 
fused accommodations,  he  was  driven  to  find  lodg- 
ings in  private  homes.  Mortified  and  disappointed, 
he  recrossed  the  ocean,  having  failed  to  find  in  free 
America  the  very  personal  freedom  that  he  enjoyed 
in  his  own  despotic  Russia.  Gifted  in  mind  and  hu- 
man sympathy  as  are  few  men  in  the  world  today, 
Gorky  could  not  understand ; he  does  not  now  under- 
stand. 

Russian  books  and  newspapers  freely  discuss 
those  things  that  are  not  mentioned  in  the  literature 
of  English-speaking  countries.  Whether  a man  is  di- 
vorced or  has  an  unofficial  family  is  a matter  of  su- 

i8 


ROMANCE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  PEOPLE 


preme  indif¥erence  to  his  associates.  One  of  the 
American  consuls  told  me  of  a lady  friend,  an  Ameri- 
can, who  came  to  Russia  and  visited  the  Tolstoi  home 
near  Tula.  She  was  walking  over  the  estate  with 
Tolstoi  and  his  family,  male  and  female,  when  they 
came  to  a pond.  “I  have  not  yet  had  my  morning 
swim;  won’t  you  join  us?”  remarked  Tolstoi  as  he  be- 
gan disrobing.  The  family  followed  suit.  The  lady 
excused  herself  from  participating  in  the  swim,  but 
sat  by  while  the  nude  philosopher  and  his  family  en- 
joyed their  innocent  morning  recreation. 

Russia  has  produced  more  idealists  than  any  other 
people  on  earth.  Her  greatest  writers,  men  who  have 
taken  an  immortal  grip  upon  the  great  heart  of  the 
world,  men  who  have  expressed  the  deepest  thoughts 
of  the  human  soul,  are  men  like  Tolstoi,  Gorky,  Tour- 
geniev  and  Dostoievsky.  Lomonosov  created  and 
tuned  the  instrument  of  the  Russian  language.  Push- 
kin used  it  to  voice  the  Slavic  consciousness  and  lay 
bare  the  national  heart.  The  chorus  voiced  by  them 
all  was  an  appeal  for  “liberty.” 

There  is  foundation  for  the  claim  that  absolute 
freedom  of  manners  and  thought,  that  unrestrained 
personal  liberty,  flourishes  better  under  a despotism 
than  under  political  democracy.  Renan  points  out 
that  individual  freedom  of  thought  in  Rome  under 
Nero  compared  favorably  with  that  enjoyed  under  the 
Athenian  censorship  in  its  prime.  But  the  existence 
of  a broad  personal  liberty  nowhere  implies  the  ex- 
istence of  political  liberty.  In  fact  the  reverse  is  more 
apt  to  be  true.  A people  inordinately  tenacious  of 
their  individual  rights,  a people  repugnant  to  disci- 
pline, who  rebel  at  conceding  anything  to  the  common 
good,  are  the  people  who,  while  retaining  their  per- 
sonal liberty  of  thought  and  action,  generally  lose 

19 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


their  political  rights.  There  can  be  no  political  lib- 
erty without  some  discipline  of  the  people  by  and 
through  themselves.  The  people  of  a given  entity, 
who  insist  upon  their  right  to  say  violent  things,  to 
throw  their  refuse  into  the  street,  to  harbor  a cross 
dog,  to  build  a fire-trap  in  populated  sections,  to 
throw  to  the  winds  marriage  laws,  to  clothe  them- 
selves indecently,  to  sell  in  the  open  markets  adulter- 
ated foods  and  poisonous  drinks;  such  a people  may 
succeed  in  enjoying  these  personal  prerogatives,  but 
they  do  it  at  the  cost  of  their  political  liberties  and 
social  well-being. 

No  fact  is  better  known  about  Russia  throughout 
the  world  than  the  constant  struggle  of  her  people  to 
attain  political  liberty.  This  struggle  is  particularly 
promoted  by  her  middle  classes  and  her  “intellectuals,” 
as  well  as  by  great  segments  of  her  higher  and  lower 
orders.  It  has  been  an  international  wonder  that 
180,000,000  of  people  would,  year  after  year  and  de- 
cade after  decade,  submit  to  an  autocracy,  however 
benevolent  and  however  paternal  it  may  be.  The 
phenomenon  is  generally  attributed  to  the  prevailing 
ignorance  of  the  people.  This  doubtless  explains 
much,  but  another  cause,  equally  potent,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  stubborn  determination  of  the  Slav  to  yield 
not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  his  personal  rights  for  the  com- 
mon good.  Like  the  wild  horse  of  the  Nevada  plains, 
that  prefers  to  suffer  the  pangs  of  starvation  and  cold 
rather  than  submit  to  the  comforts  of  the  restrained 
corral,  the  Slav  is  unwilling  to  pay  the  inevitable  price 
which  will  secure  to  him  the  blessings  of  a democratic 
form  of  government.  The  Russian  proletariat,  the 
“intelligents,”  and  especially  the  militant  reformers, 
by  their  insistence  upon  immaterial  things,  by  their 
tenacious  demand  for  complete  liberty  of  thought  and 


20 


ROMANCE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  PEOPLE 


manners,  by  their  domineering  conduct,  inability  to 
sacrifice  party  spirit,  and  their  jealousies  to  purely 
class  and  local  interests,  by  their  utter  inability  to  act 
with  sufficient  discipline  to  ensure  a necessary  mini- 
mum degree  of  co-operation,  and  by  obstinately  an- 
tagonizing other  theories  that  do  not  coincide  with 
their  own  in  every  particular,  have  managed  to  de- 
feat their  own  ambitions  and  render  impossible  any 
general  concerted  plan  of  deliverance.  It  is  the  lesson 
of  history  that  untrammeled  individualism  leads  to 
despotism.  When  the  individuals  cannot  agree,  the 
despot  assumes  control  and  the  result  is  an  autocracy. 

When  the  curtain  rose  upon  the  history  of  the 
Slavic  peoples  about  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century, 
there  appeared  a conglomeration  of  independent  prin- 
cipalities in  the  region  south  of  Lake  Ladoga  and 
about  the  upper  waters  of  the  Dnieper.  This  people 
was  the  kernel  out  of  which  grew  the  Russian  Empire 
of  today.  These  Slavic  tribes  were  not  Asiatics  ex- 
cept in  the  sense  that  all  the  Indo-Aryans  of  Europe 
were  Asiatics.  History  finds  them  first  in  the  Car- 
pathian mountains,  along  the  banks  of  the  Danube, 
drifting  to  the  north  and  east.  The  ancient  towns  of 
Novgorod,  Pskow,  Kiev,  Smolensk  and  Rostov  were 
their  fortified  centers  for  protection  and  trade.  For 
the  most  part,  the  government  of  these  so-called  prin- 
cipalities was  more  or  less  that  of  a pure  democracy. 
The  “prince”  was  merely  a hired  fighting  man,  who 
looked  after  the  defenses  and  got  his  instructions  from 
the  people.  These  instructions  and  other  rules  were 
made  in  a popular  assembly,  the  veche,  called  to- 
gether whenever  necessary  by  the  ringing  of  the  great 
bell.  These  hired  fighting  princes  were  mostly  Var- 
angers,  adventurers  from  Scandinavia  of  the  north. 
Hence,  these  little  governments  became  known  as  the 


21 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


principalities  of  the  Variagi,  or  Varangers.  As  the 
Variag  came  from  a land  called  “Rus,”  the  words 
“Russia”  and  “Russland”  came  into  existence.  It  is 
a curious  fact  the  Slavic  tongue  had  no  word  to  ex- 
press the  idea  of  king,  prince  or  anyone  set  to  rule 
over  them.  For  a name  for  these  princes,  recourse 
was  had  to  the  Scandinavian  tongue,  and  the  term 
“Koening”  was  corrupted  into  the  Slavic  knias.  Later 
the  chief  prince  or  grand  duke  came  to  be  known  as 
the  velikii  knias.  Even  the  word  “tsar”  is  a Slavic  cor- 
ruption of  the  Latin  caesar.*  What  more  eloquent 
testimony  could  there  be  to  the  inherent  democratic 
character  of  a people  than  that  their  very  language 
had  no  word  to  express  the  idea  of  a ruler,  prince  or 
despot? 

Surrounding  the  prince  was  a retinue  of  boyars, 
made  up  of  hired  fighting  adventurers  and  landed  pro- 
prietors, who  were  men  of  much  political  influence. 
The  boyars  not  only  defended  the  people,  but  they  held 
the  prince  in  check  should  he  attempt  oppression.  The 
prince,  as  the  hired  commander  of  the  troops,  was 
compelled  to  take  a solemn  oath  to  obey  the  ancient 
laws  and  usages,  and  if  he  failed  in  his  trust  he  was 
summarily  deposed  and  expelled.  The  people  had  an 
old  proverb  in  rhyme : 

Koli  khud  knias, 

Tak  V grias. 

(If  the  prince  is  bad,  into  the  mud  with  him).  The 
veche  made  laws  for  the  behavior  of  the  prince  as  well 
as  the  people.  Governing  those  stiff-necked  burghers 
and  rebellious  boyars  was  not  an  easy  undertaking. 
Once,  in  the  principality  of  Galitch,  the  burghers  seized 

*Some  authorities  hold  that  Tsar  is  the  Babylonian  and 
Ninevite  final  osor,  ezzar,  asar,  etc.,  to  royal  names  signifying 
throne  or  authority. 


22 


ROMANCE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  PEOPLE 


their  prince,  killed  his  favorites,  cheerfully  burned  his 
mistress  alive  and  compelled  him  to  swear  that  in  the 
future  he  would  live  with  his  own  wife.* 

The  political  character  of  these  petty  independent 
principalities  varied  with  local  conditions.  When  the 
prince  was  strong  and  the  people  inactive,  more  or  less 
of  despotism  prevailed ; when  the  burghers  were  virile 
and  aggressive  and  the  prince  was  weak,  democracy  of 
the  purest  type  prevailed.  The  people  got  what  rights 
they  insisted  upon  and  no  more. 

The  prevailing  custom  of  electing  as  their  hired 
princes  fighting  Variagi  from  Rus  furnished  tempta- 
tion for  adventurers  from  the  Varanger  country  to 
make  forays  upon  these  isolated  entities  in  quest  of 
loot.  Because  the  Slavs  were  split  up  into  small  po- 
litical segments,  it  was  considered  expedient  to  pay 
tribute  to  the  bandits  from  the  north  rather  than  to 
fight  them,  and  thus  the  policy  of  paying  tribute  or 
blackmail  came  into  existence.  The  growing  exac- 
tions of  the  Variagi  led  to  their  undoing;  for  the  Slavs 
finally  combined,  refused  to  pay  further  tribute  and 
drove  out  the  northern  oppressors.  After  the  princi- 
palities had  obtained  their  freedom  from  toll,  they 
quarreled  among  themselves.  Each  burgher  wanted  to 
be  let  alone  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  individual  rights, 
but,  without  common  and  concerted  agreement,  they 
were  unable  to  enjoy  these  rights.  Just  as  the  power 
of  the  hand  lies  in  the  organized  fist  rather  than  in 
the  individual  fingers,  so  the  strength  of  these  burghers 
lay  in  united  action,  but  they  failed  at  the  critical 
point.  They  were  farmers  and  traders  rather  than 
warriors,  and,  unsatisfactory  as  it  was,  they  decided 
that  the  hired  rule  of  the  Varangers  was  better  than 

’"Wallace,  Russia,  Vol.  II.,  p.  90.  Ed.  of  1878. 


23 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


unrestrained  chaos.  In  their  extremity,  they  sent  an 
embassy  or  committee  to  the  north  to  employ  a prince 
to  keep  order  among  themselves.  In  response  to  this 
invitation,  three  brothers,  Rurik,  Sineus  and  Truvor, 
Variagi,  came,  in  the  year  862.*  Rurik  took  charge  at 
Novgorod  (New  Town),  the  brothers  occupying 
neighboring  principalities.  The  brothers  shortly  died 
and  Rurik,  who  was  strong  and  enterprising,  annexed 
their  dominions.  About  the  same  time,  Askold,  an- 
other Varanger,  was  installed  as  prince  of  Kiev,  and 
because  Kiev  was  located  in  a more  strategic  point 
and  beset  by  enemies  from  the  east  and  west,  it  was 
more  subject  to  attack,  and  the  later  permanent  com- 
binations of  principalities  had  its  origin  there.  It  is, 
therefore,  a matter  of  historical  dispute  as  to  whether 
Kiev  or  Novgorodf  was  the  birthplace  of  the  Russian 
government.  But  Rurik,  because  he  was  succeeded  by 
a long  line  of  reigning  princes,  and  because  he  and 
his  successors  dominated  more  and  more  the  entire 
section,  is  regarded  as  the  founder  of  the  first  dynasty 
of  Russian  rulers.  The  year  862,  the  year  of  the 
coming  of  Rurik,  is  regarded  as  the  birthday  of  the 
Russian  Empire.  Indeed,  in  1862,  Russia  celebrated 
the  thousandth  anniversary  of  the  birth  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  it  is  peculiarly  significant  that  it  was  at 
Novgorod  that  the  great  historic  monument,  consist- 
ing of  a massive  circular  stone  pedestal  and  an  enor- 

*Baring,  The  Russian  People,  p.  76;  Wallace,  Russia,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  276,  Vol.  II.,  p.  273;  Morfill,  History  of  Russia,  p.  19;  Ram- 
baud,  History  of  Russia,  Vol.  I.,  p.  65 ; Rurik  is  a half  mythical 
character,  but  this  is  the  story  given  in  all  of  the  old  Russian 
histories. 

fNovgorod  should  not  be  confused  with  the  well-known 
Nizhni-Novgorod  (Lower  Novgorod),  the  seat  of  the  great 
Russian  fairs  on  the  Volga. 


24 


ROMANCE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  PEOPLE 


mous  globe,  was  erected  in  memory  of  the  event.  And 
it  seems  most  fitting  that  this  monument  stands  in  the 
public  square,  on  the  very  spot  where,  for  six  hundred 
years,  the  burghers  met,  at  the  ringing  of  the  great 
bell,  to  enact  laws  for  the  prince  and  the  people,  to  de- 
clare war,  to  make  peace,  to  levy  taxes.  Novgorod  was 
the  longest  existing  pure  democracy  in  the  history  of 
the  world. 

Even  Rurik,  founder  of  the  first  dynasty,  did  not 
enjoy  great  powers.  He  was  and  his  successors  were 
subject  to  the  power  of  the  assembly  of  burghers,  who 
met  at  the  sound  of  the  great  bell  and  who  retained  all 
power  in  their  own  hands.  The  princes  continued  as 
the  hired  commanders  of  troops  and  the  presiding  officers 
of  the  judicial  administration.  The  judges  were  elected 
and  deposed  by  the  people  as  they  saw  fit.  The  fluctuat- 
ing sentiment  of  the  unruly  people  resulted  in  many 
dismissals  of  judges  and  princes  as  well  as  frequent 
resignations.  It  is  of  record  that  there  were  thirty 
abdications  of  princes  within  the  period  of  a single 
century.*  In  seven  years,  Novgorod  alone  changed 
princes  five  times.  The  great  Jaroslav  came  back  the 
fourth  time  to  the  troublesome  throne.  Because  the 
descendants  of  Rurik  were  numerous,  there  were  al- 
ways plenty  of  eligible  candidates  available.  The 
people  fought  among  themselves,  the  majority  often 
drowning  leaders  of  the  rebellious  minority  in  the 
Volkhof.  One  by  one  these  principalities  lost  their 
liberties,  coming  under  the  real  control  of  the  prince 
or  being  absorbed  in  the  jurisdiction  of  a greater 
prince.  Novgorod  continued  as  an  independent  democ- 
racy, holding  on  to  her  liberties,  for  the  most  part,  for 
six  centuries.  She  grew  and  prospered.  She  became 

*Wallace,  Russia,  Vol.  L,  p.  277.  Ed.  of  1878. 


25 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


at  one  time  a powerful  state,  extending  her  territories 
to  the  Gulf  of  Finland  and  northward  even  to  the 
White  Sea,  and  eastward  to  the  Asiatic  border.  This 
principality  became  a sort  of  a commercial  outpost  of 
the  Hanseatic  League,  and  during  the  thirteenth  and 
fourteenth  centuries,  it  proudly  styled  itself  Gospodin 
Veliki  Novgorod  (Lord  Novgorod  the  Great). 

Religious  and  civil  liberty  went  hand  in  hand.* 
Christianity  had  been  introduced  by  Grand  Prince 
Vladimir  of  Kiev,  a grandson  of  Rurik,  in  genuine 
Russian  fashion.  Vladimir  had  marched  his  half-clad 
soldiers  down  to  the  Crimea,  where  he  swore  a pagan 
oath  that  if  he  captured  the  Christian  town,  he  and  his 
whole  people  would  embrace  the  faith  of  the  Cross. 
His  mother.  Princess  Olga,  had  already  been  con- 
verted and  baptized.  Vladimir  captured  the  city,  made 
good  his  oath  by  baptism,  and  married  immediately 
the  sister  of  the  Emperor  of  Byzantium,  on  the  very 
spot  now  covered  by  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Mother 
of  God  at  Chersonesus.  The  whole  population  of 
Kiev  were  immediately  baptized  (987).  Christianity 
began  to  spread,  and  Vladimir  took  his  place  in  his- 
tory as  Vladimir  the  Saint.  It  was  Jaroslav,  son  of 
Vladimir,  who  built  at  Novgorod  the  famous  church, 
St.  Sophia,  which  was  well  supplied  with  wonder- 
working images  and  bones.  Novgorod  was  then  in 
the  height  of  her  glory  and  her  Metropolitan  acknowl- 
edged no  obedience  to  the  Metropolitan  of  either 
Kiev  or  Moscow.  “Who  can  withstand  God  and  Lord 
Novgorod  the  Great?”  said  the  people.  The  veche  of 

*While  this  statement  is  generally  true,  it  is  subject  to  ex- 
ceptions. In  the  fourteenth  century,  the  veche  became  so  en- 
thusiastic in  promoting  the  national  faith  that  they  put  to  death 
heretical  strigoUki,  forbade  ancient  superstitions  and  burned 
sorcerers  at  the  stake. 


26 


ROMANCE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  PEOPLE 


Novgorod  elected  their  own  archbishop  and,  if  he 
proved  to  be  unsatisfactory,  they  dismissed  him.  The 
church  of  Novgorod  was  essentially  a national  church. 
The  city  was  full  of  churches  and  monasteries.  The 
principality  reached  the  height  of  its  power  under 
the  great  Jaroslav  and  his  son,  the  sainted  Alexander 
Nevsky. 

But  evil  days  fell  upon  the  proud  democracy.  On 
the  west,  the  Lithuanian 
princes,  having  united  vari- 
ous small  principalities,  be- 
came strong  and  aggressive. 
On  the  east,  a new  danger 
arose  in  the  invasion  of  the 
Tartar  hordes.  True,  the 
Asiatic  nomads  never  dev- 
astated the  city  of  Novgo- 
rod. But  for  a time  Nov- 
gorod paid  tribute.  Kiev 
and  most  of  the  Russian 
cities  of  the  day  were  de- 
stroyed by  the  Mongol 
torch.  For  two  centuries, 
(1238-1462)  Tartar  rule  ex- 
tended over  practically  all 
of  Russia.  But  the  Tartar 
Khans,  essentially  nomads 
in  their  character,  limited  their  government  to  that 
of  distant  suzerains.  A resident  viceroy  called  the 
bashak  acted  as  a sort  of  local  agent  for  the  collection 
of  taxes.  While  the  Russians  thereby  became  vassals 
of  the  Mongols,  they  did  pretty  much  as  they  pleased 
so  long  as  they  paid  their  taxes  and  acknowledged  the 
lordship  of  the  Khan.  Driven,  at  length,  by  the  need 
of  common  defense,  the  Russian  principalities  in  the 


27 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


east  combined  and  were  finally  united  under  the 
prince  of  Moscow,  and,  under  this  leadership,  became 
sufficiently  powerful  to  throw  off  the  Tartar  yoke. 
In  this  process,  the  veche,  or  the  assembly  of  burgh- 
ers, gradually  lost  its  power,  an  authority  at  first  mil- 
itary, then  civil,  passing  it  on  to  the  prince,  who  be- 
came more  and  more  autocratic  in  his  prerogatives. 

In  this,  there  arose  a new  danger  to  the  Republic 
of  Novgorod  and  the  neighboring  small  democracies. 
Moscow  sought  to  extend  her  jurisdiction  to  the 
principalities  of  the  west,  which  were  already  being 
encroached  upon  by  the  princes  of  Lithuania.  Nov- 
gorod, Pskow  and  the  other  principalities  were  thus 
caught  between  two  millstones,  and  it  was  apparent 
that  they  must  soon  either  become  Lithuanian  or  Mus- 
covite.* More  and  snore  the  responsibility  of  defend- 
ing the  principalities  from  foes  on  both  sides  fell  to 
the  lot  of  the  princes.  The  veche,  yielding  bit  by  bit 
to  the  military  needs  of  the  day,  gradually  lost  its 
power.  The  blind  autocracy  of  Moscow,  which  had 
destroyed  the  Tartar  oppression  from  the  east,  was 
now  turned  upon  the  principalities  of  the  west.  Nov- 
gorod, in  the  meantime,  had  fallen  into  internal  dis- 
cord. There  was  not  sufficient  cohesion  in  the  democ- 
racy to  withstand  the  assault  of  organized  autocracy, 
and  Novgorod  was  doomed.  The  autocracy  of  Mos- 
cow, developed  under  • Dimitri  Donskoi.f  was  con- 

*The  word  “Muscovite”  as  now  applied  to  the  Russian  peo- 
ple is  something  of  a misnomer.  It  was  first  applied  when 
Moscow  became  the  center  of  power,  was  continued  during  the 
centuries  when  Moscow  was  the  capital  and  is  still  used  to 
designate  the  whole  Russian  people. 

fThe  coalition  of  Russian  princes,  formed  by  Dimitri  Don- 
skoi,  won  the  great  victorj'  of  liberation  in  1380  over  Khan 
Mamai  of  the  Golden  Horde  on  the  battlefield  of  Kulikovo. 

28 


ROMANCE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  PEOPLE 

■ 

tinued  under  his  successors.  The  complete  suppres- 
sion of  the  moribund  states  and  the  creation  of  the 
autocracy  was  the  work  of  Ivan  III.,  better  known  as 
Ivan  the  Great,  his  son  Basil  and  his  grandson  Ivan 
IV.,  known  in  history  as  Ivan  the  Terrible.  Ivan  III., 
in  1470,  brought  Novgorod  under  Muscovite  rule  to 
the  extent  of  compelling  the  principality  to  pay  tribute, 
and  the  Republic  was  practically  ended  by  further 
aggressions  eight  years  later.  Subject  to  the  prince  of 
Moscow,  it  had  a partially  independent  existence  until 
the  last  vestige  of  liberty  was  crushed  by  the  hideous 
slaughter  of  Ivan  the  Terrible.  In  1570  the  blow  fell. 
Ivan  the  Terrible,  fresh  from  bloody  slaughter  in 
other  sections,  approached  Novgorod,  devastating  the 
towns  and  villages  with  fire  and  sword.  Priests  and 
monks  were  tied  to  the  stake  and  flogged  daily;  mer- 
chants and  officials  were  tortured  with  fire,  and  then 
thrown  into  the  river  with  their  wives  and  children, 
and,  lest  any  should  escape  by  swimming,  boatloads 
of  soldiers  dispatched  those  who  were  not  killed  by 
the  fall.  It  is  not  known  how  many  were  slaughtered 
in  the  villages,  but  it  is  said  that  not  less  than  60,000 
people  were  butchered  in  the  town  during  the  six 
weeks’  orgy  of  blood  and  horror.*  Thus  fell  the  city 
of  Novgorod.  There  was  closed  in  this  wholesale 
massacre  the  life  of  the  longest  existing  Republic  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  Novgorod  had  a democratic 
life  of  about  600  years.  The  municipal  Republic  of 
Pskow,  an  offshoot  of  Novgorod,  soon  collapsed,  and 

*Any  one  who  cares  to  read  further  about  the  appalling 
cruelties  of  Ivan  the  Terrible,  and  of  his  predecessors,  is  re- 
ferred to  Ralston’s  Early  Russian  History,  published  in  London 
in  1874.  In  a fit  of  anger  Ivan  assassinated  his  own  son, 
Demetrius,  thus  leaving  no  competent  heir  to  the  throne,  leaving 
it  open  to  competition.  See  also  Celebrated  Crimes  of  the 
Russian  Court,  by  Alexandre  Dumas. 


29 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


political  liberty  in  Russia  came  to  a somber  end.  Ivan 
the  Terrible,  in  his  bloody  campaign  of  twenty-four 
years,  destroyed  the  boyars  and  cemented  the  auto- 
cratic power  in  Moscow  as  had  never  been  done  be- 
fore.* Democracy  was  dead  and  here  the  story  of 
autocracy  begins. 

Three  hundred  and  fifty  years  later,  I stood  with 
bowed  head  in  the  cathedral  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul, 
Petrograd.  Surrounding  me  were  the  tombs  of  every 
Tsar  of  the  Romanoff  dynasty  save  one.  The  great 
chimes  in  the  tower  were  pealing  out  the  Russian 
national  hymn,  Kol  Slavin,  and  the  golden  robed 
priest  intoned  in  mellow,  rolling  bass,  “Gospodi  pom- 
iluy,  Gospodi  pomiluy.”  “Gospodi  pomiluy,  Gospody 
pomiluy,”  echoed  the  beggar,  knocking  her  forehead  up- 
on the  cold,  paved  floor.  The  duke,  the  merchant,  the 
isvoschik,  matrons,  children,  uniformed  army  officers, 
student,  thief  and  the  harlot  took  up  the  refrain,  “Gos- 
podi pomiluy,  Gospody  pomiluy.”  I wondered  then  and 
there  if  the  time  was  not  approaching  when  the  Rus- 
sian people,  under  God,  would  come  into  their  own. 
Little  did  I then  dream  (1913)  that,  within  two  years, 
the  chief  cause  of  Russian  suffering,  the  chief  ob- 
stacle to  real  Russian  liberty,  would  receive  its  death- 
blow and  receive  it  at  the  hands  of  the  “Autocrat  of 
All  the  Russias.”  The  miracle  is  the  more  bewilder- 
ing when  we  clearly  realize  that,  in  the  face  of  the 
most  expensive  and  destructive  war  in  which  the 
nation  ever  engaged,  the  Russian  government  has 
thereby  thrown  to  the  four  winds  an  annual  revenue 
amounting  to  nearly  a thousand  millions  of  roubles. 

*In  these  savage  forays,  Ivan  was  accompanied  by  a special 
court,  the  Oprichniki,  which  has  no  parallel  in  history  except 
that  of  the  Turkish  Janizaries  of  their  worst  period. 


30 


CHAPTER  II. 


POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 

■W"  ITH  some  explanations  and  discounts, 
the  Russian  government  may  be  de- 
scribed as  an  “absolute  autocracy.” 
Prior  to  the  remodeling  of  the  funda- 
mental laws,  which  took  place  between 
the  Imperial  manifesto  of  October  17, 
1905,  and  the  meeting  of  the  first  Duma 
on  April  27,  1906,  the  powers  of  the 
Tsar  were  officially  described  as  “auto- 
cratic and  unlimited.”  The  official 
style  is  still  “Emperor  and  autocrat  of 
all  the  Russias,”  but  the  word  “un- 
limited” is  omitted.  The  Almanack  de 
Gotha  for  1910  describes  the  govern- 
ment with  the  contradictory  phrase  “a 
constitutional  monarchy  under  an  au- 
tocratic Tsar.”  Section  4 of  the  funda- 
mental laws,  confirmed  April  23,  1906, 
provides  that  “the  supreme  autocratic 
power  is  vested  in  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias.” 
But  this  again  is  contradictory,  for  this  same  act 
(Section  7)  stipulates  that  the  Monarch  wields  the 
legislative  power  in  conjunction  with  the  Imperial 
Council  and  the  Duma.  Section  86  of  the  act  throws 
light  on  the  situation  and  explains  this  apparent  con- 
tradiction with  what  is  essentially  another  contra- 
diction. This  section  provides  that  “no  new  law  may 
be  promulgated  without  the  assent  of  the  Imperial 
Council  and  the  Duma,  or  enforced  without  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Monarch.”  In  other  words,  the  Imperial 


W 


31 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


Council  and  the  Duma  may  pass  laws  to  their  com- 
plete satisfaction,  but  they  cannot  be  “enforced  with- 
out the  sanction  of  the  Monarch.”  The  fundamental 
laws  referred  to  above  designated  further  limits  of 
the  powers  of  the  Monarch  and  outline  affirmatively 
many  of  his  constitutional  rights,  but,  in  the  last 
analysis,  everything  is  within  the  Imperial  control, 
either  by  the  direct  right  of  veto  or  through  the  pro- 
vision that  legislative  acts  cannot  be  “enforced  with- 
out the  sanction  of  the  Monarch.” 

The  imperial  manifesto  described  (supra)  decreed 
that,  in  the  future,  no  measure  was  to  become  a law 
without  the  consent  of  the  imperial  Duma  (Gosu- 
darstvennaya  Duma.)  Under  the  law  of  February 
20,  1907,  Council  of  the  Empire  (Gosudarstvenniy 
Sovyet)  was  associated  with  the  Duma  as  a legisla- 
tive upper  house,  thus  creating  a bi-cameral  legisla- 
tive body.  Under  the  ukase  of  June  2,  1907,  the  fun- 
damental laws  were  completely  upset  in  a reorgani- 
zation of  the  electorate,  the  ukase  being  a flat  de- 
fiance* of  the  original  manifesto  limiting  the  powers 
of  the  Monarch.  Under  these  conditions,  there  is 
something  of  a twilight  zone  lying  between  the  auto- 
cratic powers  of  the  Monarch  and  the  supposed  pow- 
ers of  the  Duma  and  the  Imperial  Council.  By  a 
succession  of  acts  and  incidents  covering  a sufficient 
period,  the  real  boundaries  of  the  fundamental  law 
will  eventually  be  established,  no  doubt,  under  the 
process  known  in  Anglo-American  countries  as  stare 
decisis. 

In  effect,  the  Russian  system  is  not  far  removed 
from  the  benevolent  despotism  set  up  in  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  by  the  United  States  after  the  close  ol 

*Premier  Stolypin  vigorously  defended  this  ukase  on  the 
ground  that  what  the  autocrat  had  granted,  he  could  take  away. 

32 


A RUSSIAN  TROIKA 


POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 


the  Spanish  War.  We  set  up  a form  of  government 
in  which  the  Filipino  had  no  voice  and  the  source  of 
all  power  and  authority  lay  in  Washington,  a city 
12,000  miles  away.  Finally  a sort  of  a legislature  was 
provided  for,  but  which  had  no  final  authority,  all 
its  acts  being  subject  to  veto  by  an  alien  power  on 
the  other  side  of  the  globe,  which  power  was  admin- 
istered by  appointees  responsible  in  no  way  to  the 
people  whose  affairs  were  being  served.  This  is  not 
necessarily  a criticism  of  the  system,  either  in  Russia 
or  in  the  Philippines.  In  each  case  circumstances 
and  conditions  may  provide  justification.  “It  is  a 
condition  and  not  a theory  that  confronts  us,”  is  the 
language  of  the  late  Grover  Cleveland  when  circum- 
stances arose  that  made  difficult  the  application  of 
commendable  abstract  theories  of  equity.  We  justify 
our  course  in  the  Philippines,  in  foisting  upon  those 
people  a government  without  their  consent  and 
against  their  active  opposition,  on  the  ground  that 
these  people  are  not  prepared  for  self-government, 
chiefly  because  they  are  illiterate.  The  autocratic  gov- 
ernment of  Russia  finds  its  principal  justification  for 
conducting  the  same  policy  in  the  same  argument, 
that  of  illiteracy. 

Those  who,  in  theory  at  least,  advocate  the  un- 
limited suffrage,  and  who  recognize  that  a free  people 
can  only  be  free  when  educated,  must  stand  aghast 
at  the  problem  presented  by  Russia  in  the  way  of 
illiteracy.  Of  the  entire  empire,  only  21  per  cent  of 
the  population  is  able  to  read  and  write.  The  per 
cent  varies  widely,  but  the  following  is  illuminating: 


33 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


GOVERNMENT* 
Baltic  Provinces 

Petrograd 

Moscow  

Warsaw  

Poland  

European  Russia 

Caucasus  

Siberia  

Central  Asia  . . . 
Kovno  


PER  CENT 
OF  ILLITERACY 

29-20 

....  47 

60 

61 

69.5 

....  77.1 

87.6 

....  87.7 

947 

58 


Our  fathers,  who  went  through  the  reconstruction 
following  the  Civil  War  with  4,000,000  ignorant  freed- 
men  voters,  can  imagine  the  troubles  that  would  con- 
front Russia  had  she  undertaken  the  same  feat  with  ten 
times  that  number  of  voters  freshly  freed  from 
slavery.  Before  abusing  Russia  too  severely  for  her 
form  of  government,  while  admitting  its  imperfec- 
tions, it  is  well  to  consider  the  appalling  character  of 
the  problem  which  she  faces. 

Americans  know  the  troubles  that  followed  the 
dumping  of  4,000,000  slaves  loose  into  citizenship  at 
once.  About  the  same  time  that  this  was  done,  Rus- 
sia turned  loose  40,000,000  serfs.  It  is  true  that 
America  immediately  conferred  upon  the  freed  slaves 
unlimited  suffrage.  In  later  years  we  took  back 
through  our  “grandfather  clauses”  a large  part  of  the 
suffrage  rights  so  conferred,  and  Russia,  also,  took 
away  a large  part  of  the  suffrage  she  conferred  by 
the  round-about  way  of  enlarging  the  veto  powers  of 
the  provincial  governors  and  other  imperial  agents. 

This  argument,  however,  so  far  as  Russia  is  con- 
cerned, loses  some  of  its  force  when  the  case  of  the 
Grand  Duchy  of  Finland  is  considered.  In  that  duchy. 


*Kennard;  The  Russian  Year  Book  for  1914,  p.  90. 


34 


POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 


the  rate  of  illiteracy  is  perhaps  lower  than  that  of 
any  people  on  earth.  Russia  justifies  her  autocratic 
administration  there,  in  part,  on  the  ground  that  if 
Russia  did  not  rule  these  people,  they  would  not  re- 
main an  independent  political  entity,  but  would  fall 
into  the  hands  of  some  other  power.  A parallel  of 
that  argument  is  found  in  our  American  claim  that 
if  we  did  not  rule  the  Filipino  people  against  their 
will,  they  would  not  long  remain  a political  unit,  but 
would  be  taken  over  by  Japan. 

The  common  conception  of  an  autocracy  is  that 
of  a monarch  who  sits  on  a throne  and  whose  abso- 
lute will,  without  considering  anybody  or  any  outside 
influences,  is  supreme  throughout  his  dominions.  Such 
a government  does  not  exist  in  Russia  and  such  a 
government  has  never  existed  in  its  full  completeness 
since  the  foundation  of  the  world.  No  single  man 
ever  held  such  power  or  ever  will.  Any  ruler  must, 
in  a measure,  meet  the  views  of  others,  must  concede, 
must  yield  here  and  there  to  the  ambitions  and 
wishes  of  others,  must  consider  public  opinion  before 
he  remotely  approaches  such  a theoretical  power. 
There  is  a wide  gulf  between  an  autocracy  in  theory 
and  an  autocracy  in  fact.  With  an  area  of  more  than 
one-seventh  of  the  earth’s  surface  in  land,  with  a 
population  of  more  than  180,000,000,  nearly  twice  that 
of  the  United  States,  with  an  illiteracy  of  79  per  cent, 
with  a bedlam  of  scores  of  radically  divergent  races 
and  speaking  many  different  languages,  with  a mix- 
ture of  religions  inherently  hostile  to  each  other, 
Russia  presents  probably  the  greatest  governmental 
problem  in  the  world  today. 

While  in  theory  Russia  is  an  autocracy,  the  Tsar 
has  a constant  struggle  before  him  to  secure  the 
carrying  out  of  his  wishes,  which  must,  in  the  very 

35 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


nature  of  the  case,  filter  down  through  a long  chain 
of  officials  or  deputy  autocrats  until  the  people  are 
reached. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  peasant  is  constantly  and 
pathetically  reaching  upward  and  outward  to  receive 
from  above  the  blessings  which  they  fondly  believe 
the  “Little  White  Father”  is  struggling  to  communi- 
cate to  them  through  the  wilderness  of  officialdom 
which  lies  between.  Getting  the  Imperial  will  down 
to  the  people  is  too  often  like  getting  aid  to  the  sink- 
ing Titanic — so  much  of  it  fails  to  connect. 

In  America  the  situation  is  reversed.  The  source 
of  power  is  in  the  people  and  the  people  have  a con- 
stant struggle  in  getting  their  wishes  expressed  into 
law.  They  must  be  communicated  from  below, 
through  a jungle  of  political  intrigue,  caucuses  and 
conventions  — a wilderness  where  political  wolves 
abide  and  where  sinister  interests  must  be  placated. 

Under  the  Russian  system,*  the  “Imperial  Coun- 
cil” corresponds  very  nearly  to  our  United  States 
Senate,  except  as  to  the  manner  of  its  election.  The 
Duma  corresponds  to  our  House  of  Representatives. 
Within  certain  limits,  these  two  bodies  hold  the  leg- 
islative power.  The  Tsar  is  surrounded  by  his  twelve 
ministers  or  “cabinet,”  and  holds  the  absolute  veto 
power  and  sole  executive  power.  The  veto  power  is 
not  often  exercised ; the  Russian  way  is  to  fail  to 
“carry  it  out”  or  execute  it.  Each  minister  also  has 
large  powers.  All  officials  of  each  minister  wear  the 
uniform  or  “colors”  of  his  master.  So  if  one  sees  a 

*Those  desiring  more  complete  information  of  the  Russian 
political  organization  should  consult  Dr.  Kennard’s  latest  Year 
Book;  Pares’  Russia  and  Reform;  Wallace’s  Russia;  Geddie’s 
Russian  Empire;  Stadling’s  Through  Siberia,  and,  of  course, 
Rambaud’s  great  work,  The  History  of  Russia. 

36 


POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 


uniformed  official  on  the  streets,  he  knows  to  what 
branch  of  the  Imperial  service  he  belongs. 

The  Minister  of  the  Interior,  through 
his  agents,  has  certain  powers  of  veto- 
ing the  acts  of  the  local  or  district 
Zemstvo. 

The  Tsar  is  the  civil  head  of  the 
Greek  Church.  The  Church  has  no  ec- 
clesiastical head,  as  all  eclesiastical 
questions  were  supposed  to  have  been 
settled  by  the  first  seven  Ecumenical 
Councils  held  in  the  early  history  of 
the  Christian  Church. 

The  “Senate”  {Pravitelstvuyushchi 
Senat),  established  by  Peter  the  Great, 
formerly  had  the  chief  preparation  of 
legislative  acts,  but  also  has  in  its  con- 
trol certain  administrative  functions.  It 
now  very  nearly  corresponds  to  our 
United  States  Supreme  Court,  but  still 
retains  many  of  its  administrative 
duties.  This,  in  brief,  is  a skeleton  of  the  Imperial 
government  which  has  its  headquarters  in  Petrograd, 
a city  of  1,700,000  people,  one-tenth  of  whom  are  in 
uniform. 

The  Empire  is  divided  into  seventy-eight  “gov- 
ernments” (guberniya) , which  very  nearly  correspond 
to  the  American  “states.”  They  will  average  some- 
what larger  than  our  own  states.  At  the  head  of 
each  “government,”  there  is  a governor  appointed  by 
the  Tsar  on  recommendation  of  the  Minister  of  the 
Interior.  The  governor  is  considered  as  a personal 
representative  of  the  Tsar  and  in  fact  is  a sort  of  a 
“deputy  Tsar”  in  his  functions  and  powers. 


37 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 

Six  of  the  larger  cities,  including  Petrograd  and 
Moscow,  constitute  each  a “government”  of  itself,  at 
the  head  of  which  is  a “prefect,”  whose  powers  are  the 
same  as  those  of  a governor.  It  is  as  if  Chicago  or 
New  York  city  constituted  a state  by  itself.  Another 
complication  lies  in  the  fact  that  certain  groups  of 
“governments”  or  “states”  have  above  them  a “gov- 
ernor-general,” a dignitary  who  has  charge  of  the  gov- 
ernors of  his  particular  group  of  states. 

For  the  assistance  of  the  governor,  a board  of 
administration  is  created,  which,  in  turn,  is  split  up 
into  departments  very  much  like  the  departments  of 
an  American  state  government. 

No  act  of  any  legislative  body  within  a given  gov- 
ernment is  valid  until  it  has  been  approved  by  the 
governor.  He  might  be  called  the  “deputy  autocrat" 
of  his  particular  government.  Indeed,  he  has  certain 
legislative  power,  the  right  to  promulgate  certain 
“compulsory  regulations”  which  have  the  force  ot 
law,  just  as  the  Tsar  may  promulgate  a “special 
ukase”  when  the  Duma  is  not  in  session.  This  power 
of  the  Tsar  to  promulgate  laws  during  the  recess  of 
the  Duma  continues  the  essentials  of  autocracy. 
Early  in  1911,  Premier  Stolypin  made  use  of  this  to 
introduce  Zemstvo  administration  in  the  Western 
governments,  a measure  to  which  the  Duma  would 
not  agree  and  which  situation  resulted  in  a crisis. 

In  each  government  there  is  a “government 
zemstvo  assembly,”  an  elective  legislative  body  which 
corresponds  to  our  state  legislature.  This  legislative 
body  has  powers  somewhat  corresponding  to  our  leg- 
islatures, but  its  every  act  is  subject  to  the  veto  of  the 
governor.  Its  members  are  made  up  of  elected  rep- 
resentatives of  (a)  the  district  zemstvo;  (b)  repre- 
sentatives of  the  nobility;  (c)  of  the  government  and 

38 


POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 


district  councils ; (d)  of  the  clergy  and  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture. 

The  governor  not  only  has  the  veto  power  over 
the  acts  of  the  government  assembly  or  zemstvo,  but 
he  also  exercises  the  veto  power  over  the  acts  of  all 
legislative  subdivisions  within  his  government.  It  is 
the  same  as  if  the  governor  of  an  American  state  had 
the  veto  power  over  every  act  of  a county  board  of 
supervisors  or  board  of  county  commissioners  in  his 
state  and  even  the  veto  power  over  every  act  of  a 
village  council  or  town  meeting  within  his  state.  This 
power  he  exerts  as  needs  be,  sometimes  in  person  and 
sometimes  through  certain  under  officials  or  agents 
which  will  be  described  later,  and  who,  in  turn,  are  in 
effect  deputies  of  the  deputy  autocrats. 

Each  government  (or  state)  is  subdivided  into 
"districts”  (Uiesd),  which  in  a way  have  their  counter- 
part in  the  American  congressional  district.  It  com- 
prises more  than  the  canton,  which  corresponds  to 
our  American  county.  But,  differing  from  the  Ameri- 
can system,  the  district  has  a zemstvo  of  its  own  and 
a set  of  officers  who  exercise  certain  legislative  and 
administrative  duties. 

This  district  zemstvo  is  made  up  of  members 
elected  by  the  nobility  and  by  the  local  cantons.  It 
holds  its  sessions  once  a year,  which  are  presided  over 
by  the  marshal  of  the  district,  who  is  elected  by  the 
nobility.  During  the  interim,  the  affairs  of  the  dis- 
trict are  carried  on  by  a committee.  This  zemstvo 
has  jurisdiction  over  certain  matters  of  taxation,  char- 
itable institutions  and  so  on.  In  fact,  usually  about 
forty  members  are  elected  to  the  district  zemstvo,  but 
the  governor  of  the  province  selects  from  the  list 
about  a dozen  who  actually  serve.  The  selection  is 
usually  made  on  the  advice  of  the  marshal.  The  no- 


39 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


bility  distinctly  control  the  zemstvo  of  the  districts. 
The  decisions  and  acts  of  the  district  zemstvo  are 
'subject  to  revision  on  appeal  to  the  Senate. 

The  operations  of  the  district  zemstvo  are  sub- 
ject, therefore,  to  two  checks:  First,  the  governor 
controls  the  selection  of  its  members,  and  (2)  has  the 
veto  power  over  the  zemstvo.  The  acts  are  subject 
to  senatorial  revision  on  appeal. 

The  district,  in  turn,  is  divided  into  cantons  or 
volosts,  which  in  a way  correspond  to  the  counties  of 
American  states.  The  volosts  vary  greatly  in  size. 
Some  of  them  have  only  two  or  three  villages  and 
some  as  many  as  thirty.  In  each  canton  or  volost 
there  is  a zemstvo.  Each  village  or  tnir  elects  one  rep- 
resentative for  every  ten  families,  and  the  assembly 
of  these  so  selected  constitute  the  cantonal  zemstvo. 
This  canton  is  really  the  unit  of  Russian  govern- 
mental administration.  The  volost  zemstvo  elects  an 
elder  or  starosta,  who  represents  the  canton  in  all  its 
dealings  with  the  government,  the  district  and  with 
Petrograd.  It  elects  judges,  who  preside  over  trials 
and  petty  disputes  arising  between  peasants.  The 
taxes  are  paid  through  the  starosta  who  is  responsible 
for  his  canton. 

The  canton  zemstvo  is  made  up  entirely  of  peas- 
ants, elected  by  peasants  exclusively,  and  deals  only 
with  peasant  affairs.  It  is  controlled  by  the  peasants 
more  completely  even  than  the  district  zemstvo  is 
controlled  by  the  nobility.  All  of  its  acts,  however, 
are  subject  to  revision  by  the  local  agent  of  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  province,  known  as  the  “land  captain.” 
The  land  captain  does  not  exercise  the  veto  power 
directly,  but  transmits  “meritorious”  cases  to  the 
governor  with  his  recommendation.  Inasmuch  as  the 
governor  knows  nothing  about  the  matter  and  is  too 


40 


POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 


busy  to  investigate,  he  usually  follows  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  land  captain,  who  thus  becomes  the 
local  autocrat  of  the  canton  or  volost.  He  is  an  ap- 
pointee of  the  governor  of  the  province. 

In  theory,  the  village  or  mir  is  an  independent, 
self-governing  body.  It  resembles  in  some  respects 
an  Indian  Pueblo  of  the  far  Southwest.  For  the  most 
part,  its  lands  are  held  in  common  like  those  of  an 
Indian  tribe,  though  their  use  is  apportioned  by  the 
village  assembly.  In  this  assembly,  which  is  not  dig- 
nified with  the  name  of  a zemstvo,  each  head  of  a 
house  has  one  vote.  Each  householder  is  a sort  of 
a stockholder  in  the  communal  corporation.  The 
village  may  elect  new  members,  lease  lands,  disci- 
pline its  members  and  buy  farm  machinery  in  com- 
mon and  so  on.  Most  of  the  American 
farm  machinery  sold  in  Russia  is  sold  to 
these  village  organizations.  The  larger 
village  elects  a village  starosta,  but  in 
the  smaller  ones  the  headman  is  merely 
called  “the  elected  one.”  The  so-called 
“Tenth  Man”  of  a mir  assists  as  a sort  of 
a secretary,  whose  chief  duty  is  to  go 
around  and  tap  on  the  windows  with  a 
long  pole  when  the  starosta  or  the  “elect- 
ed one”  decides  to  call  a meeting.  Each 
member  of  the  mir  is  a part  owner  of 
the  common  property  of  the  village  and 
he  also  must  share  in  the  common  re- 
sponsibilities. The  village  taxes  are  paid  in  bulk  to 
the  canton  and  an  able-bodied  man  is  regarded  as  a 
source  of  revenue  to  help  make  up  the  tax  budget. 
Therefore,  he  cannot  leave  the  mir  of  which  he  is  a 
member  and  separate  himself  therefrom  without  buy- 
ing himself  out.  If  he  leaves  the  village  and  does  not 


41 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


buy  himself  out,  he  must  send  home  his  earnings  or 
a portion  thereof  to  aid  in  bearing  the  common 
burdens. 

The  town  council  or  village  assembly  may  buy 
more  land  or  sell  that  which  it  has,  its  dealings,  how- 
ever, being  under  the  supervision  of  the  land  captain, 
who,  in  turn,  is  responsible  to  the  marshal  of  the  dis- 
trict as  the  agent  of  the  governor. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  skeleton  of  the  Russian  ad- 
ministrative system,  but  in  this  no  account  is  taken 
of  the  police  system,  which  is  another  network  under 
the  direction  of  the  Minister  of  the  Interior,  and  whose 
functions  in  fact  (but  not  in  theory)  are  interwoven 
with  the  administrative  organization,  though  inde- 
pendent thereof.  The  police  system  acts  as  an  addi- 
tional check  upon  the  functions  and  activities  of  the 
local,  district,  volost  and  provincial  bodies. 

The  whole  system  has  a theoretical  basis  of  self- 
government,  the  foundations  for  which  were  outlined 
by  Catherine  II.  and  which  was  carried  into  execution 
by  Alexander  II.  But  Alexander,  at  a critical  mo- 
ment, found  his  career  cut  short  by  being  blown  to 
pieces  by  a Nihilist  bomb.  But,  while  the  system  has 
a theoretical  basis  of  self-government,  it  is  also  based 
on  the  theory  that  all  power  and  authority  is  filtered 
down  from  above.  In  fact,  this  same  paternal  power 
reserves  to  itself  all  sorts  of  checks,  balances  and  veto 
powers.  The  powers  of  the  village,  the  canton,  the 
district  and  the  governments  are  not  distinctly  sur- 
veyed and  set  down  by  law.  Generally  speaking,  any 
of  them  are  permitted  to  take  most  any  kind  of  action 
they  see  fit,  but  this  action  is  not  necessarily  carried 
out.  It  is  not  carried  out  and  cannot  be  carried  out 
unless  approved  by  the  sources  of  authority  above. 
As  an  instance,  many  of  these  local  zemstvo  and  gov- 


42 


POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 


ernmental  bodies  voted  prior  to  the  war  that  there 
should  be  no  more  liquor  sold  by  the  government  mo- 
nopoly in  their  midst,  but  resolutions  of  this  sort  were 
not  carried  into  effect  because  not  validated  by  the 
powers  above.  It  was  very  much  as  if  an  American 
village  council  should  vote  to  close  up  the  government 
postoffice.  They  could  vote  again  and  again,  but  the 
postoffice  would  continue  to  do  business  as  before. 
While  this  was  true  as  to  government  vodka  shops,  it 
was  not  strictly  true  as  to  private  liquor  selling.  Under 
the  manifesto  of  February  19,  1861,  large  powers  of 
self-government  were  given  to  local  legislative  organ- 
izations. In  theory,  they  had  the  power  to  prohibit 
liquor  shops  in  the  villages  and  cantons,  and  many  did 
so.  But  as  long  as  there  was  close  by  a local  govern- 
ment vodka  shop,  which  they  could  not  close  and 
from  which  the  local  authorities  could  collect  no  reve- 
nue, the  villages  naturally  would  license  private  shops 
from  which  they  could  derive  a revenue  for  the  relief 
of  taxation. 

It  was  and  is  the  theory  that  the  local  authori- 
ties and  the  individual  could  do  anything  not  forbid- 
den by  law.  This  was  a principle  enunciated  by 
Catherine  II.,  in  1766,  when  she  called  a Council  of 
Deputies  from  all  over  the  Empire  to  discuss  a new 
code  of  laws.  The  instructions  from  Catherine  con- 
tained these  words,  “The  nation  is  not  made  for  the 
sovereign,  but  the  sovereign  for  the  nation ; for  citi- 
zens’ equality  consists  in  only  having  to  obey  the  law. 
Liberty  is  the  right  of  doing  anything  that  is  not  for- 
bidden by  law.  It  is  better  to  spare  ten  criminals  than 
to  ruin  one  innocent  man.”  The  people  took  more 
seriously  than  did  Catherine  some  of  her  high-sound- 
ing phrases,  which  she  gleaned  largely  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Montesquieu,  Voltaire  and  Beccara. 

43 


CHAPTER  III. 
RUSSIAN  CHARITY 


HE  Russian  is  always  religious  and  al- 
ways charitable.  Yet  there  is  no  appar- 
ent connection  between  the  two.  Re- 
ligion has  nothing  to  do  with  Russian 
conduct.  On  the  streets,  the  thief,  the 
priest,  the  official,  the  business  man,  the 
laboring  man  and  the  prostitute  are 
equally  careful  to  make  the  sign  of  the 
cross  whenever  they  pass  a shrine,  a 
church,  a graveyard  or  when  they  meet 
a funeral  procession.  Religion  is  a part 
of  patriotism  and,  as  Maurice  Baring  so 
well  sets  forth,*  “religion  in  Russia, 
whether  believed  or  not,  will  always 
remain  a part  of  patriotism;  and  so 
long  as  there  is  a Russian  nation, 
there  will  be  a Russian  religion  at  the  core  of  it.” 

There  are  probably  more  freakish  religious  sects 
in  Russia  than  in  any  other  country  in  the  world, 
and  the  unlucky  Russian  government  is  entitled  to 
more  sympathy  than  it  gets  in  its  efforts  to  deal  with 
them.  The  frightful  Skpotsi  would  carry  out  literally 
the  exhortation,  “if  thine  eye  offend  thee,  pluck  it 
out,”  and  on  the  police  devolved  formerly  the  thank- 
less task  of  preventing  them  from  doing  it.  The 
Dietoubiytsi  (slayers  of  children)  felt  it  their  duty  to 
send  the  souls  of  new-born  babies  straight  to  heaven 

*The  Russian  People,  p.  358.  See  also  Saloviev;  History  of 
Russia,  p.  157.  Sir  Charles  Eliot  also  expresses  the  same  view. 


45 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


before  they  become  corrupted  with  sin.  Another  sect, 
the  Dushilschiki  (the  suffocators)  believed  that  their 
parents  and  friends  should  be  preserved  from  a nat- 
ural death,  hence  they  suffocated  them.  The  Fili- 
povtsi  taught  the  doctrine  of  suicide.  The  Molchal- 
niki  would  never  speak.  The  famous  Dukhobortsi  re- 
fused to  accept  any  marriage  law,  practiced  free  love, 
and  refused  to  register  births  and  deaths  because  the 
Lord  knew  all  about  it.  They  fled  to  Canada  in  1898 
and  found  as  much  fault  with  the  laws  of  Canada  as 
with  those  of  Russia.  The  Molokani,  or  drinkers  of 
milk,  resemble  the  Dukhobortsi,  and  are  a worthy  people 
in  many  respects.  They  taboo  alcohol,  tobacco  and 
meat.  Some  of  the  Tartars  have  a doctrine  which  re- 
quires them  to  shave  every  part  of  their  bodies  except 
the  head  and  face.  The  “Old  Believers”  constitute  a 
really  powerful  sect  of  the  Greek  church,  which  origi- 
nated in  a protest  against  making  certain  corrections  in 
the  ritual  of  the  church,  purely  matters  of  error  made 
by  copyists.  To  shave  their  whiskers  is  a mortal  sin. 
They  strenuously  uphold  the  practice  of  making  the 
sign  of  the  cross  by  using  two  fingers  instead  of 
three.  They  allege  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  on 
the  cross.  The  two  fingers  represent  the  dual  nature 
of  Christ,  that  of  God  and  man,  and  they  hold  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  no  part  in  the  crucifixion.*  Witch- 
craft, which  always  thrives  in  ignorance,  breaks  out 
occasionally  in  the  mir.  While  I was  in  Petrograd  in 
1913,  a distemper,  prevalent  in  an  interior  Russian 
village,  was  charged  up  to  witchcraft,  and  the  excited 
people  turned  out  en  masse  to  hunt  down  the  witch. 
The  village  rumseller  was  accused  and  the  mob  beat 
him  to  death.  Apparently  the  people  guessed  right 

*Pares;  Russia  and  Reform,  p.  141. 

46 


RUSSIAN  CHARITY 


for  once,  but  the  affair  provided  another  disagree- 
able job  for  the  police.  The  “Jumpers”  are  a sect 
somewhat  resembling  the  “Holy  Rollers”  of  America, 
but  some  of  their  ceremonies  are  of  such  a character 
that  they  cannot  be  described  in  print. 

From  end  to  end,  Russia  is  honeycombed  with 
charitable  institutions  and  charitable  enterprises,  many 
of  which  are  under  clerical  control  and  management. 
They  do  not  seem,  however,  to  have  their  origin  in 
religion,  but  spring  rather  from  the  natural  desire  of 
the  people  to  be  helpful.  In  this  we  mark  another 
contradiction  of  the  Slavic  mind.  When  a Russian 
violates  a law,  punishment  of  the  most  brutal  sort  is 
inflicted  and  the  offender  submits  with  true  Slavic 
stoicism.  But  the  traveler  among  these  people  can- 
not but  observe  everywhere  the  spirit  of  helpfulness 
and  the  universal  desire  to  render  assistance.  On  the 
trains,  at  the  hotels  and  wherever  I went,  the  German 
appeared  for  the  most  part  in  the  arrogant  role  of  an 
Almighty  being;  the  Austrian  was  haughty,  selfish 
and  indifferent ; the  Frenchman  was  cynical  and 
frivolous;  but  the  Russian,  the  Lett  and  the  Finn  hov- 
ered around  like  a friend  watching  for  a chance  to  be 
helpful,  to  render  some  kindness. 

I was  at  sea  for  thirteen  days  with  a party  of 
sixty  Russian  doctors,  lawyers,  school  teachers  and 
professional  men  who  were  returning  from  a tour  of 
America.  By  canvassing  to  ascertain  what  American 
thing  most  interested  them,  I learned  to  my  surprise 
that  they  were  not  at  all  concerned  in  the  Washing- 
ton Monument,  in  Niagara  Falls,  the  Grand  Canyon 
or  even  Bunker  Hill.  They  were  only  eager  to  know 
all  about  American  social  and  charitable  enterprises. 
They  had  visited  Hull  House  in  Chicago,  journeyed 
to  Freeville,  New  York,  to  inspect  the  George  Junior 


47 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


Republic,  and  had  made  themselves  familiar  with  the 
social  settlement  enterprises  of  the  “East  Side”  in 
New  York.  They  were  interested  in  compulsory  edu- 
cation, the  principal  present  demand  of  the  Social- 
Democratic  element,  “the  intelligents”  of  Russia. 

On  landing  at  Libau,  a Russian  friend  escorted 
me  to  the  principal  attraction  of  the  city,  an  immense 
beer  garden  on  the  water  front.  The  ticket  of  ad- 
mission required  a revenue  stamp.  Such  a stamp  is 
required  for  admission  tickets  to  all  amusement  en- 
terprises throughout  the  Empire.  The  proceeds  go  to 
“charity.”  “If  one  can  afford  to  go  into  a beer  gar- 
den, he  can  afford  to  contribute  a mite  to  charity,” 
commented  my  friend.  Passports  for  foreign  travel 
issued  to  Russian  subjects  call  for  a stamp  tax 
amounting  to  about  five  dollars  in  American  money. 
This  goes  to  “charity.”  Again  I was  told,  “If  a Russian 
can  afford  to  travel,  he  can  afford  to  contribute  well  to 
charity.”  On  shipboard,  I was  cautioned  to  throw  over- 
board my  playing  cards,  if  I had  any.  “Only  playing 
cards  manufactured  by  our  charity  establishment  are 
permitted  to  be  sold  or  introduced  into  Russia,”  I was 
informed.  The  numerous  barefooted  women  and 
children  around  the  streets  of  Libau,  running  in  and 
out  of  the  liquor  shops,  indicated  whence  came  the 
need  for  at  least  a part  of  this  revenue  collected 
everywhere  for  “charity.” 

I noticed  among  Russians  the  common  practice 
of  always  providing  themselves  with  kopeks*  when 
they  go  out  on  the  streets.  These  they  toss  to  beg- 

*A  louble  amounts  to  about  fifty  cents  in  American  money. 
One  hundred  kopeks  make  one  rouble.  In  some  places,  begging 
is  an  established  “industry”  and  is  licensed  the  same  as  street 
peddlers.  Comparatively  few  beggars  are  to  be  found  in  Petro- 
grad,  but  they  swarm  the  streets  of  Moscow  and  many  other  cities. 

48 


< 

in 


Q 

:2; 

< 


in 

< 

O 

u 


< 

1/3 

X 

bi 

> 

5 

< 

ffi 

H 

Q 

U3 

X 

Q 

2: 

X 

bi 

bi 

X 

X 

H 

bi 

ffi 

H 

:z: 

o 

X 

bi 

< 

H 

c/3 

< 


X 

P-, 

< 

X 

o 

o 

H 

O 

X 

cu 

c/3 

£ 

H 


> 

H 

c/3 

< 

IS 

>H 

Q 

> 

O 

iz; 

< 

o 

X 

bi 

ffi 

H 

tb 

O 

bi 

X 

X 

U3 

K 

H 

o 


BACK  ROW,  LEFT  TO  RIGHT — GRAND  DUCHESS  MARIE,  GRAND  DUCHESS  OLGA  AND  GRAND  DUCHESS 
TITANIA.  CENTER  ROW — THE  TSARINA  AND  THE  TSAR,  AND  GRAND  DUCHESS  ANASTASIA. 
FRONT  ROW — THE  TSAREVICH,  GRAND  DUKE  MICHAEL  ALEXIS,  HEIR  TO  THE  RUSSIAN  THRONE. 


RUSSIAN  CHARITY 


gars,  who  appear  everywhere  and  who  make  their 
rendezvous  in  the  traktirs,  the  licensed  dramshops  of 
the  lower  class.  “We  know  that  most  of  these  beg- 
gars will  spend  their  money  for  drink.  It  is  too  bad, 
but  some  may  be  really  hungry,  and  who  can  tell 
which  one?”  So  it  was  explained.  During  the  two 
days  that  I was  with  my  Russian  friend,  in  Libau  and 
Riga,  he  would  encourage  my  giving  to  “charity,”  but 
would  not  permit  me  to  pay  for  anything  else.  “You 
are  in  Russia  and  pay  nothing  while  you  are  with 
me,”  he  would  insist.  The  beggar  is  the  walking  ad- 
vertisement of  what  vodka*  has  been  or  has  done  to 
the  Russian  people. 

Russia  leads  the  world  in  its  ratio  of  births,  mar- 
riages and  deaths.  Of  every  i,ooo  people,  266.9  die 
before  they  are  one  year  old.f  Five  hundred  and 
eighty-two  die  before  they  are  five  years  old,  and  six 
hundred  and  twenty-nine  die  before  they  are  ten  years 
of  age.  When  a child  comes  into  the  world,  the 
chances  are  three  to  one  that  he  will  not  live  to  be 
ten  years  old.  Vodka  is  recognized  as  being  largely 
responsible  for  this  frightful  record. 

Another  important  factor,  more  or  less  inter- 
woven with  drink  practices,  is  the  many  loose  cus- 
toms of  Russian  social  life.  The  mujikj  of  the  vil- 
lages know  little  or  nothing  of  home  life  as  it  exists 

*Voda  is  the  Slavonic  word  for  “water.”  Vodka  is  a 
derivative  difficult  to  express  in  English.  It  carries  with  it 
both  a diminutive  and  a sinister  meaning.  “Little  water” 
spoken  contemptuously  is  an  approach  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word. 

fKennard;  Russian  Year  Book  for  1914,  p.  611. 

tMujik  is  an  insulting  diminutive  of  the  Slav  word  mujh, 
which  means  “man.”  Mujik  is  equivalent  to  “little  man,”  spoken 
contemptuously. 


49 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


in  America.  Marriages  are  contracted,  for  the  most 
part,  for  other  reasons  than  love.  The  young  people 
grow  up  with  no  very  well-defined  convictions  as  to 
chastity.  The  servant  girl  class  in  the  cities  is  re- 
cruited from  the  villages.  The  city  is  largely  made 
up  of  great  apartment  houses  built  around  a court 
which  has  a single  entrance ; the  establishment  is 
managed  locally  by  the  dvornik  (janitor)  and,  in  case 
of  a large  establishment,  there  is  a starshiy  dvornik 
(head  janitor).  This  dignitary  is  the  agent  of  the 
landlord  in  renting  the  apartments  and  in  collecting 
the  rent.  He  is  also  the  agent  of  the  police  in  their 
system  of  espionage,  reporting  all  who  come  and  go. 
Daily  reports  are  made  to  the  police  as  well  as  to  the 
landlord.  He  is  held  responsible  by  both.  The  police- 
man depends  on  the  dvornik  and  the  dvornik  depends 
on  the  policeman.  As  a rule,  the  dvornik  gets  no  pay 
for  his  services.  He  is  left  to  graft  off  the  tenants 
and  the  visitors  as  best  he  can.  The  tenants  are 
usually  quite  liberal,  especially  if  they  are  engaged  in 
a doubtful  occupation,  because  trouble  wfith  the 
dvornik  means  trouble  with  the  police. 

The  servant  girls  of  the  establish- 
ment or  various  establishments  are  the 
chief  source  of  information  for  the  dvor- 
nik. These  girls,  ignorant,  handsome,  of 
more  or  less  loose  habits,  become  the 
easy  prey  of  the  dvornik.  Vicious  con- 
tributions to  the  situation  are  added  by 
male  members  of  the  family  and  by  tran- 
sient visitors,  but,  for  convenience  sake, 
^ most  of  the  trouble  is  laid  onto 

the  dvornik.  He  becomes  the 


Ox 


social  goat. 

Thus  there  come  into  the 


50 


RUSSIAN  CHARITY 


world  veritable  swarms  of  fatherless  children.  Very 
little  is  thought  of  it  and  nothing  else  is  expected  of 
these  servant  girls  from  the  villages.  The  baby  is 
taken  to  the  nearest  foundling  hospital  to  be  taken 
care  of  by  public  charity.  The  girl  goes  back  to  her 
work  and  the  same  thing  happens  again  the  follow- 
ing year. 

Out  of  this  social  warp  and  woof,  there  has  grown 
up  the  Russian  priyut,  the  charity  system  that,  like 
everything  else  in  Russia,  is  of  Brobdignagian  propor- 
tions. Babies  must  be  cared  for  in  the  foundling 
hospitals,  they  must  be  educated  in  some  institution, 
and  all  this  is  done  on  a wholesale  scale.  The  largest 
of  these  foundling  hospitals  is  in  Moscow,  where,  in 
one  single  institution,  from  15,000  to  20,000  babies 
are  cared  for  each  year  and  some  900  nurses  are  em- 
ployed. Within  three  blocks  of  the  Winter  Palace  is 
a gigantic  foundling  hospital  covering  nearly  a whole 
city  block  of  ground.  For  the  most  part,  the  nurses 
are  recruited  from  the  girl  victims  of  the  rotten  social 
system. 

Out  of  this  situation  has  grown  up  what  is  known 
as  the  “Institutions  of  the  Empress  Marie,”*  a gigantic 
charitable  trust  the  like  of  which  the  world  has  never 
seen  before.  It  exists  by  virtue  of  no  statute  or  law, 
yet  its  annual  budget  is  passed  on  and  approved  by 
the  Tsar  himself.  It  renders  no  public  account  of 
its  receipts  or  expenditures.  While  the  public  Is 
taxed  for  its  support,  its  fiscal  operations  are  kept 
secret.  Its  revenues  are  further  augmented  by  be- 
quests, donations,  and  from  the  practical  sale  of 
decorations  and  honors. 

It  is  fitting  that  this  remarkable  system  of  chari- 

*In  Russian  government  circles,  the  “institutions”  of  the  Em- 
press Marie  are  technically  known  as  “Section  IV.” 

51 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


ties  should  be  officially  called  the  “Institutions  of  the 
Empress  Marie,”  in  memory  of  one  of  the  most  pa- 
thetic figures  in  Russian  history.  Empress  Marie 
Feodorovna  was  the  great,  great  grandmother  of 
Nicholas  II.  and  is  affectionately  called  the  “Mother 
of  the  Tsars.”  She  lived  through  the  reigns  of  three 
Tsars,  those  of  her  husband  and  two  of  her  sons. 
Princess  Dorothea  Sophia,  of  Wurtemberg,  who,  on 
her  marriage  to  Grand  Duke  (afterwards  Tsar)  Paul, 
was  received  into  the  Greek  church  as  Marie  Feodor- 
ovna. Paul  ruled  for  five  years,  ending  with  his  as- 
sassination on  the  night  of  March  23,  1801.  He  was 
a man  of  low  mentality,  wallowing  in  secret  vices,  of 
violent  temper  and  eccentric  unto  madness.  He  took 
the  first  step  looking  to  relieving  the  condition  of  the 
serfs  by  decreeing  that  they  need  not  work  for  their 
masters  more  than  three  days  each  week.  He  reduced 
taxes,  and  that  is  about  all  there  is  to  his  credit.  He 
was  strangled  in  his  room  adjoining  that  of  his  sleep- 
ing wife,  by  his  own  officers,  and  within  a few  hours 
many  of  the  houses  of  Petrograd  were  illuminated 
for  joy.*  But  the  noble  wife  who  survived  him  be- 
came, through  her  womanly  virtues,  one  of  the  bright 
spots  in  Russian  history. 

These  institutions  were  originall)'-  begun  by  Em- 
press Marie  in  1796,  when  she  became  the  head  of  the 
original  charitable  educational  society.  In  1828,  the 

*Paul  equipped  his  army  with  show  buckles  and  pigtail  wigs. 
His  face  was  so  ugly  that  he  refused  to  have  his  own  portrait 
on  the  coins,  as  had  been  the  custom,  thus  initiating  the  present 
plan  of  using  the  double-headed  eagle  instead.  People  were 
compelled  to  kneel  in  the  mud  as  he  passed.  He  hated  round 
hats  and  gave  orders  to  the  policemen  to  knock  off  every  hat 
of  that  sort  that  they  saw.  He  was  constantly  issuing  ukases 
about  the  style  of  clothes.  His  assassination  has  been  justified 
on  patriotic  grounds. 


52 


RUSSIAN  CHARITY 


management  of  the  concern  passed  into  the  hands  of 
Section  IV.  of  the  Private  Chancellory  of  His  Im- 
perial Majesty.  The  present  head  of  the  institution 
is  Dowager  Empress  Maria  Feodorovna,  mother  of 
the  present  Tsar.  It  was  she  who  established,  some 
years  ago,  a series  of  schools  for  girls  known  as  the 
Mariinskiya  Gymnasii,  which  schools  form  a part  of 
the  system  named  in  honor  of  the  “Mother  of  the 
Tsars.” 

Another  extensive  source  of  revenue  for  these  in- 
stitutions is  the  monopoly  on  playing  cards.  The  in- 
stitution owns  a factory  where  the  playing  cards  are 
made,  and  no  playing  cards  are  allowed  in  the  Rus- 
sian Empire  that  are  not  manufactured  by  this  con- 
cern. The  administration  offices  of  this  concern  are 
at  No.  7 Kasanskaia,  Petrograd,  and  occupy  quarters 
as  large  as  the  whole  Interior  Department  in  Wash- 
ington. 

As  indicating  the  character  of  the  institutions 
into  which  the  children  are  placed  when  they  come 
out  of  the  foundling  hospitals,  the  following  is  a list 
of  concerns  of  the  institution  which  are  covered  into 
what  is  called  the  Petrograd  Educational  Establish- 
ment ; 

The  Asylum  of  Grand  Duke  Alexander  Nikolaievitch,  for 
i6o  extern  children,  with  an  orphan  asylum  for  loo  girls. 

The  Asylum  of  Holy  Andrew,  for  145  extern  children,  with 
orphan  asylum  for  40  girls. 

The  Asylum  of  Nikolaievsky,  for  55  extern  children,  with 
orphan  asylum  for  35  girls,  30  little  girls  and  a nursery  school 
for  IS  pupils. 

The  Church  of  the  Holy  Methodius,  for  50  intern  girls. 

The  Gromovsky  of  the  Holy  Sergei,  for  no  extern  girls, 
with  orphan  asylum  for  90  boys. 

The  Asylum  in  memory  of  the  Tsarevitch  Nikolai  Alexan- 
drovitch,  for  160  extern  children. 


53 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


The  Asylum  in  memory  of  Mary,  Catherine  and  George, 
for  150  extern  children. 

The  Asylum  of  Grand  Duchess  Olga  Nikolaievna,  for  35 
intern  girls. 

The  Asylum  of  Alexander-Mariinsky  Ivan  Basilevsky,  for 
130  extern  children. 

The  Asylum  in  memory  of  the  19th  of  February,  1861,  for 
40  intern  girls. 

The  Asylum  of  Alexandrinsky,  for  150  extern  children. 

The  Orphan  Asylum  of  the  Grand  Duchess  Alexandra 
Iosifovna,  for  40  intern  girls. 

The  Asylum  of  Elizabeth  and  Mary,  for  160  extern  children. 

The  Asylum  of  the  Duchess’  Beloselsky-Belosserbsky,  foi 
25  little  intern  boys. 

The  Asylum  of  Lavalskv,  for  115  extern  children. 

The  Asylum  of  Baron  Frederix,  for  extern  children  of  the 
attendants  of  the  Petrograd  Widow-House,  with  orphan  asylum 
for  30  intern  girls. 

The  Asylum  in  memory  of  F.  P.  Rodokanaki,  for  150  extern 
children. 

The  Asylum  in  memory  of  the  Tsarevitch  George  Alexan- 
drovitch,  for  40  intern  boys. 

The  Asylum  of  Alexander  Nevskj',  for  75  intern  boys. 

The  Asylum  Ochtensky,  for  150  extern  children,  with  orphan 
asylum  for  30  girls. 

The  Asylum  of  Nikolai,  Olga  and  Elisabeth  Adamovitch, 
for  90  extern  children,  with  orphan  asylum  for  40  boys. 

The  Asylum  of  Petergovsky,  for  90  extern  children. 

The  Asylum  Udelny  (in  summer)  for  40  children. 

Besides  these,  there  are  many  schools  for  girls 
in  many  parts  of  Russia  under  the  control  of  the  Edu- 
cational Establishment. 

While  no  public  reports  are  made  of  the  expendi- 
tures under  this  “trust,”  and  its  financial  affairs  are 
kept  secret,  yet,  by  some  intrigue,  the  payment  of 
some  graft  and  a promise  to  not  use  the  figures  any- 
where “in  Russia,”  I was  able  to  secure  copies  of  the 
official  estimates  for  the  two  years  1912-1913.  On  the 
back  of  each,  the  Tsar  had  written  in  his  own  hand, 
“Let  this  be  carried  out.” 


54 


RUSSIAN  CHARITY 


DETAILED  SECRET  BALANCE  SHEET  SHOWING  THE 
ESTIMATES  OF  EXPENDITURES  OF  THE  “INSTI- 
TUTIONS OF  THE  EMPRESS  MARIE”  FOR  THE 
YEARS  1912  AND  1913. 


Expenses : 

Ordinary  expenses. 

( i)  Central  administration  and 

control  , $ 

( 2)  Maintenance  of  churches  of 

all  schools  

( 3)  Maintenance  of  educational 

institutions  

( 4)  Maintenance  of  schools 

( 5)  Maintenance  of  hospitals  and 

asylums  

( 6)  Repairs  of  buildings  and  new 

buildings  

( 7)  Pensions  and  yearly  relief.... 

( 8)  Subsidies  to  institutions,  oper- 
ations of  which  are  not  in- 
cluded in  the  estimates  of 
scholarships  in  these  insti- 
tutions, gratifications,  relief, 
traveling  expenses  and 
other  special  and  small  ex- 
penses   

( 9)  Payment  of  capital  debts 

(10)  Sums,  having  to  be  added  to 

capitals  and  deposits 

(11)  Expenses  on  leaseholds 

(12)  Expenses  on  manufacturing 

and  sales  of  cards  

(13)  Expenses  from  tax  on  pub- 

lic plays  and  amusements... 

(14)  At  the  disposal  of  the  trustee- 

ship not  anticipated  by  the 
estimates  and  for  pressing 
needs  in  the  course  of  the 
year  


Provided : 

According  to  Estimates 
1912  1913 

584.113.00  $ 584,701.00 

24,527.00  26,161.00 

2.651.225.00  3,000,001.00 

7.785,758.58  7,900,864.58 

2.072.359.00  2,140,585.00 

831.909.00  901,335-00 

1.619.300.00  1,619,023.00 


936.062.00 
39,236.28 

192,274.88 

307.420.00 

1,144,426.00 

405.000. 00 

868.000. 00 


941,497-00 

113,271.23 

216,772.49 

350,505.00 

1,082,092.00 

485.000. 00 

865.000. 00 


Total  $19,461,610.74  $20,226,808.35 

General  Manager  (Signed)  Prince  Andrew  Livin. 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


The  tragedy  of  childhood  has  been  written  large 
over  every  vodka  shop  in  the  Empire.  It  is  an  ap- 
palling fact  that,  during  the  year  1911,  155  children  in 
the  public  schools  committed  suicide. 

In  Russia,  it  is  not  customary  for  a doctor  to  send 
a bill  or  make  any  specific  charge  for  his  services  ex- 
cept in  case  of  surgical  operations.  What  is  paid  is 
regarded  as  a “free  will  offering.”  The  national 
charity  idea  is  highly  developed  in  the  medical  prac- 
tice. In  1910  there  were  7,682  hospitals  in  Russia, 
with  201,868  beds.  They  were  attended  by  19,414 
male  and  1,590  women  doctors.  The  following  table 
shows  growth  of  the  hospitals:^ 


Year  No.  Beds  Persons  Treated 

1891  108,325  1,192,199 

1901  136,516  1,696,885 

1911  210,473  3,122,879 


There  are  250,000  blind  people  in  Russia  who 
are  cared  for  at  a cost  to  the  nation  of  60,000,000 
roubles.  Two  days  are  set  apart  in  May  of  each  year, 
called  “camomile  days,”  in  which  white  camomile 
flowers  are  sold  all  over  the  Empire,  the  proceeds  go- 
ing to  the  expenses  of  the  campaign  against  consump- 
tion. Large  sums  are  collected  in  this  way.  In 
Odessa  alone,  in  1913,  the  proceeds  amounted  to 
$20,000. 

At  the  opening  of  the  European  war  in  1914,  a 
“Supreme  Council”  was  created  to  take  over  the 
management  of  the  Red  Cross  and  other  charity  work 
connected  with  military  operations.  This  work  is 
temporary  and  wholly  distinct  from  the  operations  of 
“Section  IV.”  The  “Council”  operates  under  the 
presidency  of  Empress  Alexandra,  wife  of  the  present 
Tsar. 

*Kennard;  Russiaji  Year  Book  for  1914,  p.  610. 

56 


6inAM))Tb300-An>TI»qArCTBOBAHI)li|OMAPOMAHOBUXli 

XttNMOrnHECKt(nEPE1HMEH|[i|iPI«AeHklXlBO)KAEHP»CK«rilHAP9AA.31E«rtHnitlU||IU«VH(> 
COSAITIHHAUAmPOANHbl-PDCCIIt. 

nirv^|[^^}mKiiiiiAi<uBntm)nincvm>ntN)ii)injiu]inpi)nl]APi;)M(nnaiummriiKjpwiicn»iiuvnu(mociiDl^ 

iA(i>(rin!^uiK:JiMW<^icii««}UPCAiiiwwiiPrr!WKk)uiiUPnu«iifWiu>(i)iiiu;iiuiAMWwviQmmK[uunHuiiranAn[i|«^ 


ttS 


Nn,iiio%ctm: 

' ' ' U(rin!AbuiK:JiMW'iAiPDiicii«'t}UPCiiiiwwiiPrr!fuuiKk)UKvnufliifWiu>(i)iiwi)vuuiw  ^ 

i!iw>i;KiLwiiWfljkjjw;iiviaa(<^mi«a«pfi!}flUAnipT'Vwiiw:mwwH\»r''' 

.. .,  - . ..... 

— 

uilaewijWi»pi'M‘j«a.'}:«wo5ho^  — '‘■ 

P«IIPKU‘'  ■ ■ " ■ " ■ 


iWH)iiwi'aiW^«&i»TOi'wuK£WWPJCKi'i<ncayi»ynr?wQ,n}wrx'5Sfi^i«j^ 
:wr,.'vvikfei»ma!tMj(n!«'Wffu™»i!i>Nw«wwrKv»rTSton&T>Ai»AE:4jjjf^ 

..  _ M,tfAii]jiwytoc«)'<::(»>(y'A>-a'V}MpfmiCi‘'^^OAP&PoniJ!t.'WitwioAst(«*«v^ 

iwjf(PWflpfifotft'i8^{iffiM>inHKr»s#Rti^'auywii>UPwwi:w{WJ'»iitMTO^ 


T^uAitPiitUiP^fruwiVirhmifBMPwniiikia^'iijpiTiivMfr. ....... f,,-  ••, - ■ - - 

iriia&<r*&it(t;iw^?pv!A:>A«ftMA^Uq3f>'wP.i!'il»?*UAiiDUin«ii«towiMPKa»(CiAttM|i: ■-•  — - 


yiriiAMJ).1110^OriHArttlKPf#M«{ll)iCWJ3«JI5l|AftlWlllS»roilOTt;i4WyPCPJIL'MBFW;«!.'MAHHlVlW^^ 

^iyr>1:w'W^b*^^’l!P;v.mV^WilA:^^'aPWfc‘:uli«f^IPll-Hb^AOO^«MAMbeAMMOA3lJl'W^wy‘^W^aWS9«^v■i'^■JM:ftqi>'*KtfJW^rwrvf?^ 

iMn!y-*)BtPt;rARjpaTo:(f.pme(ip.uii':rriiiPiv;ubi-jp1iipjrJU‘piiABoioA;BO!v«30BV')ouai‘>><HPP>(cuKir3»rpiHiifUiy;(n()^p(tinuuiriikCAjt)<(«utAf,{'n!cE]'anHmtc^ 
' - -^fiil(|BAi!AAPtra)iMM»vfteBaw*BCCx((nnn«lwWktio^i{Pwiw«!iiA.'it!^'Aji»&iiPfi'-np»i1t5i<iJi'W5w5KiSAi)rAlTWf 


itmfiwwiws;! 
{iiAiiMitni'W'yriiiftfiiQMiiffli 
cMHi'ir'PiSSuyJWMiiiWEP; 

ClAMAl  - 

!WjiAi-.>MP‘-;f'p«wtPf2i5?:»t»t;rt.wJanhi 


yiW4jDfiMtttIWP*fJiVrtmillWlf£AAPiimTOlpl««t^ 



(J^^||RMr(ylbWKUilnli^ppMCpp^(uMtfC'Alllr«PUBemq&pliBPH^K)WP»rpM] 

!iyi»iiwWEcmiiui«nff'M)rijiAA6oiiWi»[o»yu*HA)tyvi«e4*>'p?npflLu«ifw«wpi©fltu^^ 

ril.\>UiWb'fri'AMlir90MOnifrir;(OlRMtHllOAHllPD'BHAfOOC'A31Pj(HPW!l4':7)'}l'VVO{lii;Uk'«BPUlXIilf3r('ra;}tn(MlUAia 


llM1i!<;'lC3»W»l'PSlSfl!I«({iiaVUiE::i>sWrfJI.VIlflWy>rfAMliWM0«lWJfi!O«NII1IICAHl(PCI'5HAfO,OCfA 

mu  'wytbAiicDUPi>^i!iui!9.wuvj^’it!i^}«r?i!nip>  iiiinn/iuni3i](t'ii(i!ur{riliiAQ  ecAxuaiydiTH'SMHunrfi'V'MiioiQ; 
n«!iM««(Ainft%-HHVHi:i(:w!ffNi6ifP'j{iiii!i!nypjiu’.'.^fm«»iMi«nmM4K.sKHnoA«tfMiipfrHAcpj®i'fpi»U.wn 
-“•i«<w:jiwwwuwi'sfHiiKipiiiyfUj«|ijU3vgji:*iKi<i''rtnini!««A,Bti(ttil  — 


tHC!BJilfLKy«WB!W»|lWt4yinWa(!A!/«'li:t«!i'%fV’»>P)  

■ i)io:;™^ipioii^o-ipnwiii{r}pw»iu««jvaw^ 
LwnplWWWWAVlJ'ffli^CBKB^ 

llUHillilViaBNWnPSCffttiVjyAWK 

iiUiiiip?(/iiKnr>PifiueDA(niain;VA« 

_., ,......., ..._..  ....nflliiuwiroiiP«}P5KWii}«i|iiiiiM# 

;;Bi;t5WP!®jnA%iWJO'p\&f.pr;)|tlckHPHl!JM>'H«M««MW«r5MWIHIlflCDfAP:Ha-P4iW5AJlHiWnnWllPafW»PJ!igi^ 

lpUiUMnL'Jlpnc!AlTB^^l>l>vlC[};!'(mpjKMN}wrI?',dA(wlfmlilNl^(A(«rHlI5^'(llp^pmK‘.^W^PAJ^nl!PU3fAUK,‘npnlrillMIA%lP^fu^)SVltnv> 

■ ■ ■ ‘•■;»).ipjviPiicn«jttuuf'ip;Ll)ij»!Kf»«mW»^ 

inHi(wAuA«ii«j;/){ltPfc!rtiUi» 

iiittwytoiuicpiiwu 
lirtMWrPIllO 


.... . ^fUj«|ijU3vgji:»iKKi''rtnini!««A,Bti(tt»0E8nHATAiMni:MAwniiiWdPi=f<JM'n!nA!«iA«pl 

mjnP4Pwrtiia^PHgi'WMtfu«siEtH-APirti(w;Hip-rmiyi^^^  rr  ^ i mi  * • t *■.  • 

f»ntPtAm«tr>p;;p«ipm(!7i;ntyjAnfrn^tf:3:LPMi(M4)j^:i>:«MiwnAwi\»iaAKi8AvnPKJHAHi{HC!ABNeiiMDa«'^i(:M>>i<iAiU9r' 

M«'»liHlt;'ftK’W!HIP6('«WUr»;: i-.f.. 

i¥w..'»yAiPi''jwW(>;irw'ji 

Ntovi'i^' 


i»flipv/iA’Pfiirinjf'riiiJi( 

'f:Ki:'P;'iWiWWUKirfUH 

.„  ,_lf'4{?U:j5il>iChlUffVktfO(UA!iCilhW 

PAlP’f'UEi)tfMl»r«W'j’<.'OtWBeJPy'3y.lArK’lilr^'l'P4n.4;iiuiP'nitpA.ut«Oi1rbC/u4HmunMKiUiu:jW)l0HOyi<lvrirMHVQI4^^AM? 

_.  P.'PtWil^ii>fylUn«»lliUAliKN8OTAtt»H4Wtft'MWP4IC»pA«i''.iimo«lf*srar?»OmtflSnHAfi|llfcijihm 

uu«•lnbE.v^gl(«m(E^^(c^itfn>‘•!ii;i)Un»(HtPt^Al»llJPr(^crm''tc^EgQIB'flH<«r^le»KWC3g^bTMuMe^^An^M^r«H(AMu<(&«;(}muAi:u'£ll^. 

tf-EAyBuunM(krjnmcnAriuNMM'XiAHnci.tiuArrBruHffpnrxyAAPkrDiop»iiuPM:;:ouiiHiiTKUCrbccpp;non^iUBe(umierorbmAiv,»ai:Aa 

u.»^h>'A^HCiuM»a'(^iiaiEFUBwtMbciArnii}Effrvii;7ns;iPUMuiMgriQi4eHCK<w&MHCRiHb.'nlTAj^iiaf^ecinnt^Hbt]Anpeu^ 


iwvp»:;i".!!fw«At»">PiiiPAC’f*«J4 


tKW, 

PtAiUA 

riAtriftit’toa*«t6Mi^''ATwuP5x»HiP*(iAwoBi'»ri«»:w!3jc0?ti/,A^«Aw(inmA(RwiAiininiTP7iji«i!oiJiiikM&{fffPil 
‘“•"'‘■•"■•'■■“ttiwiS'WHLyiA'v'i^.MptprRnuiiwjTCTynAfiii'iiAnwiwfNiptPABWoanni 


_..  . , ..._ ^._JIHAHl{A)WWU3MWJ»fIfft 

iOxBkJ>?CC«illO»i:-USmilHllK(V«AH>>»l(lKPfkCMP?llttl»OBAitaP!RpeHyiMPfOiUJICklH:;.E|)imtP!rcinA« 

(MtPWHPt  blA(yt(ritXHnttpnf<Qnt?(ApfUIPtnNin)|(lAt/nriO!At>A9UAOP^iO4[IX{ai(VAnOAdOHABAnM«UHlBMnlbHCMl0MHrmCAP^lAnmCD»i(H(fAAAbM^ 
iuBrwuwiBAPiii«iciNrtivmipt(r>n{Av:(iiiKMiimrir.nppA^MaprvBy(groroM^MHoi«inAreuHeu[i;AniuiruBar(uiicuAMMn(nii[ii{5i>fi0nirimm>utiiMH 
jmA{«0Bytieiji!nPAiM3Hg(ulv^»tii(((ffvn>rMEiPArxui(N4Aii.E)iPt%£piieitHNHemt^pau(iuMgiuw7Prnu)uAA^rMiA)in^^ 


(i»MifHOCB|IOKCn)lk»K^(p^A(iiKDEOl(1ttr^KUi?Xi:'4 
AfiMnntcjip<pAiiMneni(A(iir^to;winbC!igH)iiniunNy 
(MtPWHPt  aiA(yt(ritxwittpnf<Qnt?(ApfuiPtnNin)i(lAt/ 
BAPiiyiciNrtivmipt(r>n{Av:(i) 

I ‘^OPJJCU^'PPliitllKJHUBMp 


irti>nniiAivrviiMuv««r'?;iolnNn^>’turnixxBPPAtpWi''iEm!!roMi>yy<MMAAU.AJtPiMAtPtf‘ii;n«AA!4cwMj)#i^VFp^i^^^^^ 
i'AnA^y>'i2i(tMACE!K:i|pUiXAJUMuriezM::;:ai;(:i#»lti4JEAfibHxenTricnjMiVHniAi<^.^iweAffn(ypinfrHPAA;4fvtfiiPiTA4^ 
EHMMxia>iitM>ui'}>i;'it'ACiva«iMuvNjUAiA'jfijabitHAiiutiiii(&yijiaiTiiir'ar)ranB6n'OMiimpiNrpi2t(7r9p(wA){biMMiPff(}nAiuui 
- - - - ' - ' — - - -.wfbiPscrwMifwafnuTBfliNU!* 


ii'{3raKurm'ePiK{HKwunMmifii}iAi^PKUiianATNrM^cciAfBKU(rrijOPiiAMiiFuAit»iniWftun(PUA(BMAmmNir.''imT^^^ 

amAr3ioPa'KUAUMB'<^nu>'!MUui(iirifwiuxmo)n>wei«(UimKUAMPri)aMMratfAiKnAKWwnmuM{PPn((WAUFtj)m'r8i7;aK^ 
iTwjftiiitin-^ftr»3«nAg:pfs:ir^oroPuA*<ptnPA8t'a'inn»^«w:Po<i«jAAjiwr^AivrdnoTiuPMAC»kH8APMi!tt»«»A«Ci«»ffP)wi|rj/iiri:cBoeM/’ — 

CM'WHiMTWiyMPJWAgniWil  .,  ^.. 

5M«S{mW-WHA;«lia(mO'lilliir[gAxt4f;\viAHfKr»MIWMIrtNll((K<*l?IffMll(n‘iAWM«b3Hlfl«MblJ>^  ---  

RinlCtU(41fH£1bUlift)(nmilAU1><iUp’^nlK!IV^p1P^1(PAl0nl]llAlfUf'4yDWlA;b’MMIb0M«PlVimimijUNP:i3JUMmAlhn»C4f^lHPinyCBAAAr3ftim^ 
(CAu«uiOwiKra‘4AUi:A:ugauminjuiK:iiAHm7(:ACAi,'u^WiUM9AtN^><yauAiHAcviifwilin9tr»BMp(lluBHH!CPAMeP(Bcnpnk^i^ 
Hll[flFWrpWu(ti^jri(SN(PCOi^llUIOitOibWiy();C,^4tinrM^4PewA?HAHElKOAtncu9»7KMAqAKAJ^EMy|;nilAKI{Itl)PAIOIIbi(HI(iT(lH01U>nrKCOIimi)n^ 
ffiUAM’iiJ(itiiA^7iim»BCKiHT{AbS}yii3lKSUW^.*iJ|'bSfflC>nep8Aromci?CM?»i4jiKAAK’)ypKr«KAancTMVoraA{}piMrtiPtr»UAU»)unKauum 
OMrniniioo«^£Hi)0)UN{vj^'urKqNipypKioiAPttdi’inVP>';yT3>KeHiAKprbnon.iAranPA!>AnncaiinBKOPfNiiiuixAAAr}pcAiiinAfMiKAnsAAntuicMiMPis 
rml^Bmki*^3tt9^{gl^fl|^AKyW^P«l«l^HCPf^Kppi'Jm8JS^iKt^•t^CH«ltfJkn^flbM'I5P^C^MH?K^^TV?BfCTA^W(S^^fM(MHAW^mAWm(lWa^l^roWAiff! 
nKaHAffe»V«'*3WfcfA'(y«;WlJPlj;yAWffr\5P'TxaClf3feit'-"rii>HAJha»»APMiHWlOW4^fMk/()Cyii*HMnWMrAAAMfMAm'A*aUfBm/)lJMAl»IUIUin: 
(PMHKueBi((^p-ai5&p(>UAii-i(utcH;Atiiitii;pM'a^i,>.'ii(((»:pi«SiK4meiliHMiiiAA»itAA'<'AHai''nCiwmejnji^KwmAnMK0itnBym(rilinHbin^ 

“ ‘WIVIOAJiaxjmilM  -esigj  . 'iOlWMHAMMflAAJJMIlPvCgr.nt/^WH^WMiitoAlMAibHfA^ 


— flwiAn 


iPAljW  r'ftlA  r «« 

AWIHWKgW!AHlflCAAeJlrtAlW>tlRS{MiAfT»»CMbKrMKlW!«'>P«u'M!WACb: 

nMMim;iUUhaKP.AHn(i.viiiuiAiiiE.v',raji[iM(iiriitK(Ti)lAn.<E»iLk.-iK 


'uuaaik(a»i.  AL'am  pa 


. 'iOlWMHAMMflAAJJMIlPvCavnt/AWH^WMiitoAlliM  

f?  <UmiblU(WAKA)CAAV^«.WO,r^6eAmn](Mgf^KSAAIlHNI»AA{MT^iiMCnO(b 
~ ~ AioAioiMwo^jynQVm^ciAibfltuiC^CnfAiirMrAionwmjAiAiMiKNA/Ate 

. ..  JMCb:OSf)A«imrbJCBWp:lf*fcMailP»A{ltWeM«MKMTnAiniJM)«WKTbMlirtBT^^ 

nMMimAi(t^BAHQMMuiuiA:E3:i!ArAn(iA'vm(PAm''*"ibA'wnpgtnactpyNrPMUKr()D&nANAnSMnnhnei(HiMf^BmnrMiUKCw9r!^ 
MHf)AnH(lKI!riffiAU.Mau«oUc(A^yuh3KA^n|ffAPAVl]WHCi;livP..^{;&«!i1'yKNHUUiVl^^yr;;5i(^lKKr<iCU|lVU>1M^niOMrfllMRrtnlAEHMWlU^ 
rnKGf:bB)'iR^nA^iaiaiAiicvjE(i>iv:er;iidi?npwyp(fucwinr.uKfecTUHUiMAgy  8N3ci(iiia>!U(XTui)emxoP('^Mi^KKMCA»QAeeAM^ 
»muviu{atf<v>WAUTpniiiPt;roKji)id')i<«inimi  9Ar«tit(iOAAm'>i6iUACbA!np!M)oirbcmMTM>n'AroniiMMHtfbmAA!K(Mir8DH*ai2AfkMflmi0m'iw 
lin01PIAAKnbA»ui(HiriAjntmxllinutiPtuil|IiBttB|(iiiJuniHU){SMCAf«;PAU((lUii;A&lfflAA(WUIU.iE;p.>  .limnf«ACM^)Urni9n«rPt(irAWIfftiA(WAlllAir)IPAn^ 
JBnPAAaHoev{iUuuli(n)HylgrlUMllll(l(^Hprl»MVPMt]I9il)rr|uvwBu(vu»AAlyMAPMulAAl^HWP}AA:^<>^/Ulitf«lali^Hrll</tfv^ 

EfoHMnEPATOPtKOCBEAHNECTBO  r«c9AAnHArnmTtn  aSSi. 


HhkoaahIIs 


PORTRAIT  OF  TSAR  NICHOLAS  II.  DONE  IN  RUS- 
SIAN TYPE  IN  WHICH  ARE  RECORDED  THE  PRINCI- 
PAL EVENTS  OF  SL.VVIC  HISTORY. 


RUSSIAN  CHARITY 


Recent  social  legislation  of  a high  order  indicates, 
eloquently,  the  natural  philanthropic  nature  of  the 
people.  Excellent  child  labor  laws  have  been  enacted. 
Children  under  12  years  of  age  cannot  be  employed  as 
laborers,  and  their  labor  is  restricted  until  the  age  ol 
15.  A good  workman’s  compensation  act  was  passed 
on  June  2,  1903.  A bill  which  passed  the  Duma  in 
May,  1912,  (approved  in  June)  provides  for  compul- 
sory workman’s  insurance.  On  October  i,  1913,  there 
were  1,594  sick  clubs  under  the  act,  with  a member- 
ship of  1,176,564.  All  works  employing  over  twenty 
hands  where  motive  power  is  used  and  all  works  of 
other  kinds  employing  thirty  hands  are  subject  to  the 
law.  The  government  has  organized  thirteen  regional 
insurance  companies  to  take  care  of  the  business  aris- 
ing under  this  law.  Factories  are  inspected  by  gov- 
ernment officials.  Co-operative  societies  are  encour- 
aged by  law,  government  establishments  are  instituted 
for  the  encouragement  and  sale  of  peasant  industries, 
and  practically  every  attempt  at  social  improvement 
to  be  found  in  America  has  its  counterpart  in  Russia. 

Russians  are  more  broadly  human,  probably, 
than  any  other  race  of  people.  While  poverty  is  ap- 
parent everywhere,  starvation  is  unknown  among 
peasants  when  there  is  food  for  anybody.  When 
there  is  no  famine  in  the  land,  it  would  be  difficult  for 
anybody  to  starve  in  Russia,  for  he  can  beg  success- 
fully almost  anywhere.*  That  is  a beautiful  custom  the 
mujik  has  of  leaving  a piece  of  bread  on  the  outer 
window  sill  of  his  house  at  night  for  some  hungry  one 
who  might  come  along.  Human  sympathy  and  ap- 
parent human  brutality  are  everywhere.  The  Rus- 

^Famines  are  common  in  Russia  and  then  there  is  plenty  of 
starvation.  Some  of  the  descriptions  of  famines  by  Tolstoi  and 
Korolenko  are  illuminating  and  distressing. 


57 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 

sian  will  nurse  a stricken  stranger  with  the  tender- 
ness of  a woman  and  brutally  annihilate  a robber  as 
though  he  were  vermin.  It  is  the  untrammeled,  un- 
restrained impulse  of  the  animal  called  man.  On  the 
one  hand  is  the  greatest  demonstration  of  charitable 
undertakings  that  the  world  has  ever  seen ; on  the 
other  hand  is  the  ferocious  treatment  of  prisoners  and 
the  bloody  pogroms  against  the  Jews.  Who  can 
fathom  this  thing  called  “man?” 


\ 


58 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 


HE  early  Varanger  chiefs  who 
came  from  Rus  to  become  the 
hired  princes  of  the  Slavic  po- 
litical entities  brought  with 
them  fighting  men,  druzhiny  (compan- 
ions), as  assistants.  Like  the  princes 
themselves,  these  intermarried  with  the 
natives  and  became  Russianized.  These 
“boyars,”  as  they  were  named,  formed 
a fighting  and  eventually  a land-hold- 
ing class.  They  had  the  right  of  mi- 
gration and  served  any  prince  whom 
they  chose,  going  from  one  to  another. 
While  they  “held”  allotments  of  land, 
they  did  not  own  them ; they  held  the  land  in  return 
for  service  to  the  prince.  Even  the  prince  would,  at 
times,  move  on  from  one  principality  to  another ; in 
which  case  his  boyars  would  accompany  him,  dis- 
band or  enter  the  service  of  some  other  prince.  The 
prince,  aided  by  his  boyars,  defended  the  people.  The 
farmer  worked  the  land  that  he  might  sustain  his 
boyar  and  the  boyar  shared  the  rental  with  the  prince. 
Allotments  of  land  were  held  subject  to  the  wishes  of 
the  boyar.  The  boyar,  in  turn,  held  it  subject  to  the 
wishes  of  the  prince,  and  the  prince  held  it  all  subject 
to  the  wishes  of  the  veche,  the  assembly  of  burghers. 
Land,  unless  worked,  was  worthless,  hence  the  value 
was  considered  to  lie  in  the  labor  expended  on  the 
land  rather  than  in  the  land  itself.  Everybody  was 


59 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


free,  the  laborer,  the  boyar  and  the  prince.  The  only 
exception  was  the  slaves  captured  in  war,  and  these 
belonged  to  the  prince.  Gradually,  however,  there 
came  into  being  a class  of  personal  fighting  retainers 
of  the  prince  who  had  no  landed  holdings,  and  who 
worked  or  fought  merely  for  hire. 

By  this  process,  there  grew  up  a society,  apart 
from  the  slaves  who  had  no  rights  at  all,  a free  popu- 
lation divided  into  (i)  the  “men  of  service”  and  (2) 
the  villeins  or  farmers.  The  former  class  was  divided 
into  (i)  the  boyars  who  had  landed  holdings,  and 
(2)  the  free  fighting  men  who  had  no  such  holdings. 
The  villein  had  the  right  to  transfer  his  allegiance 
from  one  boyar  to  another  and  even  from  one  prince 
to  another.  In  each  case,  he  maintained  his  rights 
over  the  land  which  he  held,  provided  he  worked.  In 
such  a case,  jurisdiction  over  the  land  went  with  the 
villein  from  one  boyar  to  another  and  even  went  with 
him  from  one  prince  to  another.  That  did  not  mean 
that  he  “owned”  the  land;  nobody  owned  land  in  the 
modern  sense.  The  villein  merely  held  for  the  time 
being  the  right  to  cultivate  the  land.  If  a boyar  ob- 
jected to  one  of  his  villeins  transferring  his  allegiance 
to  another,  that  was  a matter  to  be  fought  out  or  to 
be  adjusted  mutually  between  him  and  the  worker 
and  between  him  and  the  boyar  to  whom  the  villein 
went.  In  case  a villein  transferred  his  allegiance  to 
another  prince  the  first  prince  had  no  recourse  except 
to  go  to  war  with  the  second  prince,  and  he  could  not 
do  this  without  the  support  of  his  own  veche.  As  the 
matter  stood  at  this  period  of  social  development,  the 
villein  had  rather  the  best  end  of  the  situation.  At 
any  time  that  it  saw  fit,  the  veche,  made  up  of  the 
villeins,  could  dismiss  its  prince  and  employ  an- 
other. Dismissal  of  the  prince  carried  with  it.  the 

60 


THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 


dismissal  of  the  boyars.  The  question  arises,  why  did 
the  villein  or  the  burghers  voluntarily  submit  to  pay- 
ing tribute  or  rental  to  the  boyar  and  to  the  prince 
above  him  when  they  had  it  in  their  power  to  dismiss 
them  both?  The  reason  lies  in  the  fact  that  without 
the  prince  and  his  retainers,  the  burghers  would  have 
no  protection.  They  would  fall  a prey  to  robbers  or 
perhaps  to  some  stronger,  more  exacting  and  distant 
prince  who  had  secured  complete  control  over  his 
burghers.  The  situation  was  further  complicated  by 
the  development  of  free  communes,  free  primitive 
corporations  who  held  their  communal  land  in  com- 
mon and  elected  delegates  or  representatives  to  the 
court  of  the  prince.  Thus  eventually  there  appeared 
three  sets  of  buyers  in  the  labor  market,  the  boyars, 
the  prince  and  the  free  communes ; and  naturally 
chaos  increased  as  the  demand  for  labor  increased. 

In  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  new  in- 
fluences came  into  being.  As  explained  in  Chapter  I., 
the  aggression  of  the  Lithuanian  princes  on  the  west 
and  the  oppression  of  the  Tartar  hordes  on  the  east 
welded  together  these  independent  principalities  un- 
der a “grand  prince,”  and  these  “grand  princes,”  in 
turn,  were  swallowed  up  by  the  “grand  prince”  of 
Moscow,  who  developed  into  a Tsar.  These  aggres- 
sions, from  time  to  time,  compelled  the  prince  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  his  armed  men,  which,  in  turn, 
multiplied  his  financial  burdens,  till  at  length,  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  this  problem  led  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Pomiestie  (manor).  The  fighting  men  were 
scattered  about  on  frontier  tracts  of  land,  chiefly  to 
the  east,  each  being  given,  as  a holding,  a tract  of 
land.  Thus  a living  barrier  was  placed  between  Mos- 
cow and  her  Tartar  enemies.  The  fighting  man  held 
his  land  as  long  as  he  continued  to  serve,  and  he 

6i 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


served  as  long  as  he  continued  to  hold  the  land.  The 
tenure  of  the  manor  was  considered  a little  more 
temporary  than  the  hereditary  holding,  but  even  the 
hereditary  holding  did  not  carry  with  it  the  owner- 
ship of  the  land.  In  return  for  the  use  of  the  land, 
the  burgher  or  villein  worked  a certain  number  of  days 
for  the  free  servant  or  the  landlord. 

Herein  lay  the  weakness  of  the  situation,  a weak- 
ness that  became  more  apparent  as  outside  dangers 
increased.  As  long  as  the  boyar  had  no  actual  con- 
trol over  the  villein  and  as  long  as  the  prince  had  no 
actual  control  over  the  boyar,  the  entity,  in  time  of 
danger,  was  but  a rope  of  sand.  As  long  as  the  villein 
could  not  always  be  depended  on  to  serve  the  boyar, 
the  boyar  could  not  be  relied  upon  to  serve  the  prince ; 
the  boyar  could  not  fight  unless  he  was  fed  and  there 
was  none  to  provide  his  upkeep  except  the  villein. 

Attempts  were  made  to  remedy  this  situation  by 
multiplying  the  difficulties  of  villein  migration.  The 
prince  desired  to  have  as  many  inhabitants  as  pos- 
sible because  the  revenues  depended  upon  the  popu- 
lation ; and,  for  the  same  reason,  the  landed  proprietor 
desired  to  have  as  many  as  possible  to  till  his  lands. 
The  free  communes  desired  as  many  members  as  pos- 
sible because  taxes  came  to  be  levied  on  the  com- 
mune as  a whole  and  each  member  relieved  every 
other  member  by  assuming  a part  of  the  burden.  The 
prince,  the  landlord  and  the  communes,  therefore,  did 
all  in  their  power  to  prevent  migrations.  This  was 
accomplished  partly  by  law,  but  more  frequently  by 
sheer  force.  The  villein  was  not  allowed  to  leave  as 
long  as  he  was  in  debt  to  his  landlord,  which  was 
generally  the  case,  for  the  burgher,  like  the  mujik  of 
today,  was  not  overcautious  about  getting  into  debt. 
The  communes  would  refuse  to  allow  a member  to 

62 


THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 


leave  unless  someone  was  provided  to  take  his  place. 
The  grand  prince  of  Moscow  aided  in  preventing  mi- 
grations. Formerly,  when  the  princes  were  independ- 
ent, it  was  an  easy  matter  for  the  farmer  to  go  from 
one  prince  to  another;  but  when  all  were  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  grand  prince,  it  was  not  so  easy. 

It  was  not  until  1597,  during  the  reign  of  Boris 
Godunov,  the  usurper  of  the  throne  and  the  last  Tsar 
of  the  Rurik  dynasty,  that  the  fatal  step  was  taken 
that  marked  the  beginning  of  serfdom.  In  that  year, 
Boris  enacted  a law  providing  that  if  a tenant  left 
his  holding  on  any  except  St.  George’s  day,  the  pro- 
prietor could  compel  him  to  return  at  any  time  within 
five  years.  In  1649,  when  the  laws  respecting  the 
peasant  were  codified  in  the  Ulozhenie,  the  five-year 
limit  and  the  provisions  about  leaving  on  St.  George’s 
day  were  abolished,  and  it  was  enacted  that  nobody 
had  a right  to  receive  a tenant  who  had  abandoned 
another  landlord  without  the  latter’s  permission.  In 
theory,  certain  obligations  were  laid  upon  the  land- 
lord. He  could  not  divorce  the  tenant  from  his  land, 
and  he  must  provide  him  with  land  and  implements. 
While  the  tenant  had  only  the  loan  of  the  livestock, 
the  landlord  could  not  take  it  away  from  him  by  force, 
and  although  he  could  still  appear  before  the  courts 
as  a free  man  and  retained  all  of  his  civil  rights  except 
that  of  changing  his  domicile,  these  rights,  in  the 
working  out,  became  more  and  more  visionary.* 

There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  it  was  the  in- 
tention, either  of  Boris  Godunov  or  of  the  framers  of 

*The  leading  authority  for  the  early  history  of  the  peasantry 
of  Russia  is  M.  Belaef.  His  Krestyane  na  Rusi  was  published 
in  Moscow  in  i860.  For  English  readers,  good  chapters  are 
devoted  to  this  subject  by  Wallace,  in  his  Russia,  and  by  Baring 
in  his  Russian  People.  See  also  Kennard’s  Russian  Peasant. 

63 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


the  Ulozhenie*  to  create  a system  of  personal  slavery. 
There  are  yet  plenty  of  people  in  Russia,  particularly 
among  the  Slavophiles  of  Moscow,  who  will  strenu- 
ously deny  that  personal  slavery  ever  existed  in  Rus- 
sia except  as  to  captives  taken  in  war.  It  was  un- 
doubtedly the  intention  to  fasten  the  tenant  to  the 
land  only,  and  thus  to  remedy  a condition  that  had 
become  a recognized  evil.  It  was  purposed  for  the 
mutual  advantage  of  both  classes  and  to  solve  tem- 
porarily a pressing  economic  problem.  What  it  actu- 
ally accomplished  was  the  personal  enslavement  of 
the  whole  peasantry  of  Russia  for  two  hundred  years. 

When  two  men  are  chained  together,  it  is  in- 
evitable that  the  weaker  shall  become  more  or  less 
the  prey  of  the  stronger.  The  landlords  began  system- 
atically to  levy  fines  upon  their  tenants  and  to  col- 
lect such  fines  by  flogging.  From  this  it  was  but  a 
step  to  actually  selling  peasants  without  the  land.  At 
first,  this  was  wholly  without  legal  authority,  but  at 
length  the  right  to  sell  one’s  peasants  without  the 
land  was  formally  recognized  by  law.f 

There  still  remained  some  distinction  between  the 
tenants  and  the  slaves  on  the  one  hand  and  the  “free 
wandering  people”  on  the  other.  Then  came  Peter 
the  Great  with  his  numerous  public  enterprises  re- 
quiring enormous  amounts  of  money,  and  new  schemes 
of  taxation.  He  caused  a census  to  be  taken  in  which 
slaves,  domestic  servants,  peasants  and  agricultural 
laborers  were  all  included  in  one  classification.  He 
levied  a poll  tax  on  each  and,  to  simplify  the  collec- 
tion of  the  tax,  he  made  the  landlord  responsible  for 

*This  codification  took  place  under  the  reign  of  Alexis,  the 
second  Tsar  of  the  Romanov  dynasty,  and  who  was  the  first 
Tsar  who  undertook  to  cope  with  the  evils  of  liquor. 

tSee  ukase  of  October  13,  1765,  and  that  of  June  27,  1682. 

64 


CHURCH  OF  THE  RESURRECTION,  PETROGRAD 

BUILT  AT  A COST  OF  23,000,000  ROUBLES  OVER  THE 
SPOT  WHERE  ALEXANDER  II.  WAS  MURDERED.  THE 
HOLE  MADE  BY  THE  DYNAMITE  BOMB  IS  LEFT  AS  IT 
WAS  IN  THE  BODY  OF  THE  CHURCH,  COVERED  BY  A 
CANOPY  SUPPORTED  BY  JASPER  PILLARS.  ON  THE 
WALLS  ARE  NEARLY  A MILE  SQUARE  OF  MOSAIC  PIC- 
TURES. THE  ENTIRE  INTERIOR,  INCLUDING  FLOORS, 
IS  OF  MOSAIC. 


RUSSIAN  PLAYING  CARDS 


THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 


it  all.  Then  all  the  “free  wandering  people”  were  re- 
quired to  either  enlist  in  the  army  or  enroll  them- 
selves as  serfs  to  some  proprietor,  or  as  members  of 
some  commune.  Those  who  failed  to  obey  were  clas- 
sified as  “vagrants”  and  sent  to  the  galleys.  There 
was  then  no  longer  room  in  Russia  for  free  men  out- 
side of  the  landlord  and  official  classes.  Even  these 
were  not  wholly  free.  All  were  a part  of  a great 
social  machine  in  the  service  of  the  state.  In  theory, 
everyone,  male  and  female,  must  serve  the  state  in 
some  manner. 

The  unrestrained  brutality  of  the  Slav  inflicted 
upon  the  serfs  such  hardship  and  oppression  that  they 
fled  by  the  thousands  to  enlist  in  the  army.  Peter 
thereupon  came  to  the  relief  of  the  landlords,  for- 
bidding the  serfs  to  enlist  without  the  consent  of  their 
masters,  under  penalty  of  being  beaten  by  the  knout 
and  sent  to  the  mines.*  The  landlords  received  the 
right  to  transport  unruly  serfs  to  Siberia  for  life. 
During  the  reign  of  Catherine  II.,  the  climax  of  serf- 
age was  reached.  The  serfs  were  declared  by  law  to 
be  a part  of  the  master’s  immovable  property,t  a part 
of  the  working  capital  of  the  state.  As  such,  they 
could  be  bought  and  sold  and  given  as  presents.  They 
could  not  even  marry  without  the  consent  of  the  over- 
lord.  The  only  legal  restrictions  in  their  favor  were 
that  they  must  not  be  offered  for  sale  at  public  auc- 
tion or  during  times  of  conscripton.  In  all  other  re- 
spects, serfs  were  treated  precisely  as  private  prop- 
erty. Then  and  there  was  established  the  custom — a 
custom  which  continued  down  to  i86i — of  computing 

*Ukase  of  June  2,  1794;  ukase  of  Jan.  17,  1765,  and  ukase 
of  Jan.  28,  1766. 

tUkase  of  Oct.  7,  1792. 


65 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


a noble’s  fortune  by  the  number  of  his  serfs,  rather 
than  by  the  number  of  his  acres  or  by  his  income.  He 
was  worth  so  many  thousands  of  “souls.”  In  order 
to  keep  the  vast  horde  of  serfs  in  subjection,  they 
were  forbidden  to  make  any  complaints  under  pen- 
alty of  being  beaten  with  the  knout  and  sent  to  the 
mines.*  The  frightful  abuses  heaped  upon  the  serfs 
have  not  been  ignored  by  the  Russians  themselves, 
and  much  has  been  written  on  the  subject  in  the  Rus- 
sian language.  Some  of  these  outrages  described  are 
of  the  most  horrible  character. 

In  theory,  there  was  some  justification  for  serf- 
dom in  the  argument  that  obligatory  service  was  im- 
posed upon  all.  The  serfs  served  the  nobles  in  order 
that  the  nobles  might  serve  the  Tsar.  What  there 
was  in  this  theory,  however,  was  wholly  overturned 
by  Peter  III.,  in  1762,  when  he  issued  a manifesto 
abolishing  the  obligatory  service  of  the  nobles.  But 
so  completely  had  the  original  meaning  of  serfage 
been  obliterated  that  no  one  thought  of  carrying  out 
the  logical  consequences  of  the  manifesto  as  to  the 
serfs.  The  serfs  remained  in  chains.  The  last  points 
of  difference  between  the  legal  status  of  the  serf  and 
that  of  slaves  captured  in  war  had  long  since  been 
obliterated.  All  were  slaves  in  the  fullest  sense  of 
the  word.  Even  the  masters  did  not  become  free  in 
fact  under  the  edict  of  Peter.  Under  Catherine  the 
Great,  the  gentry  became  more  servile  than  ever.  The 
great  Suvorov  showed  his  genius  by  devising  new 
ways  of  groveling.f 

All  moral  sense  withered  under  such  a pressure. 
Thus  soil  was  prepared  for  the  development  of  those 

*Ukases  of  August  22,  1767,  and  March  30,  1781. 

fPares;  Russia  and  Reform,  p.  119. 

66 


THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 


Nihilist  ideas  that  would  dynamite  into  atoms  every 
existing  thing  without  knowing  or  caring  what  is  to 
be  put  in  its  place.  It  is  inconceivable  that  such  a 
strained  and  artificial  state  of  society  could  long  en- 
dure, especially  at  a period  when  the  beacon  lights  of 
human  liberty  were  being  lighted  at  so  many  points 
throughout  the  civilized  world.  During  the  reign  of 
Catherine  II.  (1768-96)  the  subject  of  emancipation 
was  informally  considered  by  the  Empress.  She  dis- 
cussed it  with  Voltaire,  to  whom  she  had  taken  a 
fancy  and  with  whom  she  carried  on  a personal  cor- 
respondence. The  question  was  also  raised  with  her 
by  Bearde  I’Abaye  Marmontel  and  by  the  Society  of 
Political  Economy  of  Petrograd.  But,  instead  of  tak- 
ing any  steps  in  the  direction  of  liberation,  Catherine 
went  to  the  limit  of  reaction,  stripping  the  serfs  of 
the  last  remnant  of  their  rights  and,  in  1788,  extend- 
ing the  system  of  bondage  to  the  soil  to  the  peasants 
of  Malo  (little)  Russia  and  to  the  Ukraine,  the  present 
government  of  Kharkov.  She  did,  however,  severely 
punish  certain  masters  for  cruelty  to  serfs,  but  she 
took  no  steps  whatever  looking  to  improving  their 


67 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


political  condition.  It  remained  for  Paul  (1796-1801), 
who  is  generally  regarded  as  being  crazy,  to  take  the 
first  steps  of  any  sort  looking  to  the  amelioration 
of  the  condition  of  the  serfs.  This  took  the  form 
of  a requirement  that  they  need  work  for  their  mas- 
ters only  three  days  out  of  the  week.  This,  if  a way 
had  been  provided  to  effectively  carry  it  out,  would 
have  dealt  the  system  a blow  in  a vital  part,  but  there 
was  no  one  to  enforce  its  provisions. 

Alexander  I.  and  also  his  famous  Prime  Minister, 
Speranski  (1801-25)  were  heartily  in  favor  of  eman- 
cipation of  the  serfs,  and  they  had  the  ability  to  make 
progress  in  the  reform.  But  even  an  autocrat  is 
obliged  to  consider  public  sentiment  and,  in  such  a 
mighty  undertaking,  the  subject  had  to  be  approached 
by  degrees.  Two  years  after  Alexander’s  accession 
to  the  throne,  a beginning  was  made  by  giving  to 
landlords  the  power  to  liberate  their  serfs ; and, 
shortly  afterwards,  47,000  were  set  free,  enfranchised 
and  made  a separate  class.  In  1819,  the  serfs  in  the 
three  Baltic  provinces  were  liberated  on  condition 
that  they  relinquish  to  their  masters  what  little  rights 
they  had  to  their  land.* 

Nicholas  I.  (1825-55),  like  his  father,  was  friendly 
to  the  emancipation  idea.  Many  of  the  nobility  Avere 
also  friendly  to  the  plan.  While  it  is  true  that  Nicho- 
las I.  was  an  obstinate  reactionary,  yet  one  of  his 
enemies,  Prince  Dolgoruki,  gives  him  this  testimony .f 

*The  emancipation  idea  was  promoted  by  the  Petrograd  So- 
ciety of  Political  Economy.  In  1812,  the  Society  offered  a re- 
ward of  $1,000  for  the  best  essay  on  the  advantages  of  free  and 
servile  labor.  As  long  as  the  Tsar  was  favorable  to  emancipa- 
tion, the  Society  was  free  to  promote  the  idea  Avithout  fear  of 
interference. 

tQuoted  by  Rambaud.  Vol.  III.,  p.  221. 

68 


THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 

“However  hostile  he  may  have  been  to  the  doctrine 
of  liberty,  we  must  do  him  the  justice  to  say  that  he 
never  ceased  through  his  whole  life  to  cherish  the 
idea  of  emancipating  the  serfs.”  Many  of  the  troubles 
of  Speranski  came  about  through  his  schemes  looking 
to  emancipation.  The  nobles  of  Petrograd,  Tula, 
Dunaberg  and  Riazan  even  petitioned  Nicholas  to 
form  local  committees  to  draft  an  emancipation 
scheme.  Under  the  curious  system  of  land  tenure 
that  had  grown  up  and  under  the  more  liberal  treat- 
ment of  serfs  since  Catherine  II.,  the  serfs  came  to 
believe  that  they  had  certain  legal  rights  to  their  hold- 
ings and  were  adverse  to  any  changes  that  would 
lessen  the  little  hold  that  they  had  upon  the  land. 
Besides  this,  the  government  conceived  the  idea  that 
the  state  should  not  consent  to  any  scheme  that  would 
uproot  the  serf  from  his  holdings  and  allow  the  lib- 
erated one  to  wander  about  at  will.  Such  a move,  it 
was  believed,  would  render  impossible  the  collection 
of  taxes  and  lead  to  disorder  besides.  It  was  also  felt 
that  to  place  severe  restrictions  upon  the  movements 
of  the  liberated  ones  would  result  in  leaving  him  still 
more  in  the  power  of  the  landlord.  And  to  give  the 
land  to  the  peasants  would  seem  to  take  it  away  from 
the  proprietors,  depriving  them  of  certain  vested 
rights.  As  a matter  of  fact,  land  tenure  did  not  carry 
with  it  any  clear  idea  of  ownership  on  the  part  of 
anybody.  In  theory,  it  was  held  by  permission  of 
the  Tsar  in  return  for  some  service  rendered  the  state. 
Seeing  no  way  out  of  the  dilemma,  Nicholas  con- 
tented himself  with  making  two  important  improve- 
ments in  the  condition  of  the  serfs.  He  established 
in  each  manor  an  “inventory”  in  which  a record  was 
made  of  payments  by  serfs  to  the  masters,  so  that 
they  could  be  protected  from  extortion.  He  also  made 

69 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


the  serf  a sort  of  a perpetual  tenant  of  the  land.  The 
latter  step  was  far-reaching  in  that  it  greatly  reduced 
the  power  of  the  landlord  over  the  villein. 

The  real  work  of  emancipation  was  left  as  a 
legacy  to  Alexander  II.  (1855-81.)  He  entered  heartily 
into  the  project,  but  was  convinced  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  have  the  support  and  co-operation  of  the 
nobles.  In  March,  1856,  about  a year  after  his  acces- 
sion, he  received  the  nobles  of  Moscow  and  made  to 
them  the  following  speech ; 

“I  have  heard,  gentlemen,  that  rumors  have  been  current 
among  you  with  regard  tO'  my  intention  of  abolishing  the  bond- 
age of  the  peasant.  In  order  to  refute  various  statements  which 
are  devoid  of  foundation,  on  so  important  a subject,  I consider 
it  necessary  to  declare  to  you  that  I have  no  intention  of  doing 
this  now.  But  you  naturally  are  yourselves  aware  that  the  ex- 
isting method  of  owning  souls  cannot  remain  unchanged.  It  is 
better  to  abolish  serfdom  from  above  than  to  wait  until  it  will 
be  abolished  by  a movement  from  below.  I ask  you,  gentle- 
men, to  consider  how  this  can  be  best  carried  out.”* 

During  the  next  five  years,  the  question  of  eman- 
cipation was  the  dominant  one  in  Russian  politics ; 
no  less  than  six  committees  were  formed,  under  the 
direction  of  Alexander,  to  consider  the  problem.  The 
first  committees  were  disposed  to  do  nothing  radical, 
but  were  reorganized  by  the  Tsar,  who  became  dis- 
contented with  their  policy  of  inaction.  The  news- 
papers were  almost  unanimous  in  favor  of  emancipa- 
tion, but  they  advocated  endowing  the  peasant  with 
the  land.  This  alarmed  the  nobility,  who  came  to 
favor  emancipation  also,  but  disagreed  as  to  how  it 
should  be  carried  out.  Most  of  them  insisted  that 
the  nobility  should  have  the  ownership  of  all  the  land, 
which  principle  had  already  been  half-way  recognized 

*I  have  used  the  translation  given  by  Baring  in  his  Russian 
People. 


70 


THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 


by  the  government,  but  that  the  serfs  should  have  the 
right  to  buy  their  homesteads. 

Through  five  years  of  effort  in  reconciling  the 
tangle  of  differences,  Alexander,  aggressively  assisted 
by  Grand  Duke  Constantine,  who  acted  as  president 
of  the  principal  or  general  committee,  pressed  for  a 
conclusion.  The  Tsar  was  determined  upon  emanci- 
pation, but  sought  to  compel  the  nobles  to  agree  upon 
an  equitable  basis  of  carrying  out  the  project.  When 
the  various  committees,  including  the  “drafting  com- 
mittee,” turned  in  their  final  reports,  the  general  com- 
mittee held  forty  sessions,  each  lasting  from  six  to 
seven  hours,  debating  the  matter.  The  last  session 
of  the  committee  took  place  on  January  26,  1861, 
under  the  personal  presidency  of  the  Emperor.  Two 
days  later,  the  decision  of  the  committee  was  con- 
sidered by  the  Council  of  State.  On  February  19,  the 
act  of  emancipation  was  signed  by  Alexander.  On 
March  2 it  was  ratified  by  the  Senate,  and  on  March 
5 it  was  read  out  after  mass  in  the  churches  of  Petro- 
grad.* 

What  remained  of  personal  bondage  to  the  master 
was  wiped  out,  but  this  was  not  regarded  as  of  the 
greatest  importance  either  by  the  serfs  or  by  the  land- 
lord. The  real  problem  settled  was  the  tenure  of  the 
land,  along  with  which  went  the  liberties  of  the  peas- 
ants. Approximately  350,964,187  acres,  practically 
one-half  of  all  the  land  of  Russia,  passed  from  the 
control  of  the  landlords  and  was  placed  in  the  hands 

*For  fuller  information  regarding  serfdom  and  the  emanci- 
pation, reference  should  be  made  to  Seminev’s  work  on  the 
Emancipation  of  the  Peasants,  Wallace’s  Russia,  Maurice  Bar- 
ing’s The  Russian  People,  and  Rambaud’s  History  of  the  Rus- 
sian People.  Periodical  literature  is  rich  in  articles  on  the  sub- 
ject, but  much  of  it  is  written  from  an  exparte  standpoint  and 
more  or  less  inaccurate. 


71 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


of  the  peasants  in  perpetuity.  The  government  paid 
the  landlords  in  cash  for  the  land,  and  the  peasants 
were  given  fifty  years  in  which  to  reimburse  the  gov- 
ernment, paying  6 per  cent  interest  on  the  deferred 
payments.  The  peasants  were  to  own  the  land  in 
common,  and  the  whole  community  was  made  re- 
sponsible for  each  peasant’s  payments.  Each  peasant, 
however,  had  the  right  to  buy  himself  out  of  the  com- 
munity life  by  paying  in  one  installment  the  amount 
necessary  to  redeem  his  holding.  Thus  the  whole 
social  system  was  placed  on  a new  basis.  The  new 
order  of  things  made  a new  administrative  step  neces- 
sary. A large  measure  of  self-government  was  ac- 
cordingly given  the  serfs.  The  mir  or  village  was 
made  a self-governing  entity  and  the  volost  or  can- 
ton, in  which  twenty  or  thirty  villages  were  often  in- 
cluded, was  revived  as  an  administrative  unit,  and,  on 
this  new  basis,  Russian  administration  was  reorganiz- 
ed into  the  governmental  system  described  in  Chapter 
II.  of  this  book. 

“Let  there  be  light.  And  there  was  light,”  is  the 
way  we  read  of  the  Creation  in  Genesis.  In  theory, 
the  Tsar,  as  an  autocrat,  has  the  same  completeness  of 
absolute  power  as  to  matters  of  government.  In  reality 
he  has  no  such  power.  He  is  compelled  to  recognize 
the  public  sentiment  of  his  subjects  and  can  go  no 
farther  than  that  public  sentiment  will  permit.  Since 
the  da3^s  of  Catherine  the  Great,  there  has  not  been  a 
Tsar  of  Russia  who  was  not  sympathetic  to  the  libera- 
tion idea.  The  first  steps  looking  to  that  end  were 
taken  by  the  lunatic  Paul,  and  each  Tsar  up  to  Alex- 
ander II.  added  his  contribution  to  the  project.  It 
required  fifty  years  of  persistent  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  autocratic  power  to  accomplish  this  freedom  of 
the  Russian  people.  There  had  to  be  overcome  the 


72 


THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  SERFDOM 


stupidity  of  the  serfs  and  the  selfishness  of  the  land- 
lords. Had  it  been  a plain  question  of  the  personal 
servitude  of  the  peasants,  they  would  doubtless  have 
been  freed  a quarter  of  a century  earlier,  but  the  far- 
reaching  complications  of  land  tenure  constituted  the 
factor  of  trouble.  It  is  one  of  the  mockeries  of  his- 
tory that  Alexander  II.,  who  finally  secured  the  free- 
dom of  the  serfs,  who  conferred  upon  them  a very 
large  measure  of  self  government,  was  blown  to  pieces 
by  a dynamite  bomb  in  i88i.  In  the  opinion  of  many, 
the  reaction  that  followed  was  a natural  one,  and 
the  clock  of  progress  was  set  back  in  Russia  fully 
twenty-five  years.  The  hand  that  threw  the  bomb 
under  the  carriage  of  Alexander  visited  upon  the  Rus- 
sian people  two  decades  of  trouble  and  sorrow. 

Russian  history  is  ghastly  with  stories  of  the 
severity  of  her  punishments  for  crime,  but  these  pun- 
ishments were  largely  for  offenses  against  property. 
Criminal  offenses  against  the  person  were  not  re- 
garded as  important.  The  system  of  private  revenge 
was  more  or  less  recognized.  In  early  times,  fright- 
ful tortures  were  in  vogue.  But  this  was  a period 
when  the  same  tortures  were  prevalent  all  over  Europe. 
Even  the  clergy  inflicted  punishment  upon  the  priests.  In 
1748,  the  Bishop  of  Vologda  decreed  “cruel  corporal 
punishment”  against  priests  who  wore  coarse,  ragged 
clothes.  The  world  is  familiar  with  the  tragedies  ot 
the  convict  system  of  Siberia,  but  the  convict  systems 
of  England  and  America  have  a record  widely  incon- 
sistent with  humane  methods.  There  has  been  great 
progress  in  humane  methods  in  the  convict  systems 
of  both  Russia  and  the  United  States  during  the  past 
twenty  years. 

It  is  not  generally  known,  however,  that  Russia 
is  far  in  advance  of  America  in  the  matter  of  capital 

73 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


punishment.  Elizabeth  abolished  the  death  penalty 
in  1744,  and  it  has  never  been  revived  except  for 
military  purposes  and  in  cases  of  attempts  on  the  life 
of  the  royal  family.  The  killings  of  the  “revolution” 
of  1905  were  regarded  as  military  measures. 

From  the  beginning,  the  “intelligents”  of  Russia 
have  fought  against  all  forms  of  corporal  punishment 
as  being  against  the  “dignity  of  the  human  person.” 
The  knout  has  always  been  the  favorite  method  of 
punishment  and  applied  for  nearly  every  offense  from 
murder  down  to  neglect  to  pay  one’s  taxes.  The 
abolition  of  corporal  punishment  was  one  of  the  re- 
forms carried  out  by  Alexander  II.  and  accomplished 
in  1863.  But  while  the  government  abolished  cor- 
poral punishment  the  people  did  not.  A system  of 
“local  option”  exists  as  to  flogging.  Volosts  and  can- 
tons are  at  liberty  to  use  that  method  in  their  self- 
government  if  they  wish  to  do  so,  and  it  still  quite 
generally  exists.  Too  much  censure,  therefore,  should 
not  be  visited  upon  the  Russian  government  on  ac- 
count of  the  knout,  since  it  long  since  abolished  the 
barbarous  practice,  only  to  have  it  retained  by  the 
people  themselves. 


74 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 

■N  the  runos  of  Kalevala,  the  poetical 
creation  of  the  Finnish  people, 
which  Max  Muller  calls  the  “fifth 
great  epic  of  the  world,”  we  read 
of  the  great  smith,  Ilmarinen,  and 
of  his  wedding  to  the  Rainbow 
Maiden.  As  a condition  to  the  wed- 
ding, the  Mistress  of  Pohjola  had 
imposed  supposedly  impossible  tasks, 
such  as  catching  a huge  pike  from 
the  river  of  the  Region  of  Death, 
plowing  a field  of  vipers,  etc.  But 
he  succeeded  because  the  Rainbow 
Maiden,  who  really  loved  him,  and 
who  possessed  supernatural  powers, 
always  came  to  his  aid. 

A great  ox  was  slaughtered  for 
the  wedding  feast.  It  was  so  large 
that  it  took  a swallow  all  day  to  fly 
from  tip  to  tip  of  its  horns.  A house 
! of  corresponding  size  was  built,  and  Louhi  herself 

undertook  to  provide  the  beer  for  the  nuptial  feast. 
: The  beer  was  brewed  by  Ostomar  the  “ale  con- 

structor,” and,  in  song  and  drink,  the  marriage  was 
consummated.  From  legendary  times,  drink  comes 
i down  to  the  historical  and  thence  to  the  present-day 

! people  of  Finland.  And  yet  the  Finns  are  now  the 

most  sober  people  in  Europe,  if  not  in  Christendom, 
i The  warmest  friends  of  the  Finns  are  those  who 


75 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


know  them  best — those  who  have  penetrated  the  shell 
of  their  inner  life.  Travelers  who  rush  through  the 
country  looking  out  the  car  windows  and  seeing  the 
Swedish  signs  on  buildings  everywhere,  leap  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  Finns  are  allied  in  language  and 
blood  to  the  Scandinavians.  But  a little  investigation 
establishes  the  fact  that  the  Finn  is  an  Asiatic  and 
that  he  speaks  a language  whose  noun  has  sixteen 
declensions.  There  is  to  be  found  the  fickleness,  the 
imagery,  the  love  of  myth  and  folklore,  the  music,  the 
poetical  instinct  of  the  Oriental,  combined  with  the 
hardened  fiber  of  the  snowbound  North.  “Ixion,  com- 
ing down  from  heaven,  having  banqueted  with  all  the 
gods,  remembered  only  the  patterns  of  the  table 
cloth,”  we  are  told.  And  just  so  the  average  traveler 
sees  the  granite  walls,  the  quaint  log  houses,  inspects 
the  “Finnish  bath,”  wonders  at  the  great  gray  walls 
of  Sveaborg,  listens  to  the  roar  of  Imatra,  but  wholly 
fails  to  penetrate  the  inner  soul  of  these  remarkable 
people. 

For  thousands  of  years,  the  Finnish  people  have 
been  a subject  people,  driven  from  place  to  place  be- 
fore the  morning  of  history,  often  in  a condition  bor- 
dering on  serfdom,  always  the  vassals  of  an  overlord, 
and  yet  they  emerge  from  it  all  the  soberest,  the  best 
educated,  the  most  democratic  people  in  Europe,  if 
not  in  the  world.  Like  the  American  Indian,  they 
were  driven  from  place  to  place.  They  were  crowded 
out  of  Asia  and  driven  up  the  valley  of  the  Volga 
until  they  settled  in  the  bleak  regions  of  the  frozen 
North.  There  they  have  remained  so  long  that,  witli 
the  Laplanders  and  Esthonians,  they  have  been  mis- 
taken for  the  aborigines  of  Northern  Russia.  For  at 
least  a thousand  years  these  people  have  lived  in  the 
territory  they  now  occupy. 

76 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


Because  fragments  of  Finnish  speech  are  found 
in  nearly  every  language  of  Europe,  ethnologists  have 
constructed  all  sorts  of  theories  as  to  the  origin  of 
these  people,  but  an  easy  and  probably  accurate  ex- 
planation of  this  is  the  remarkable  antiquity  of  the 
race  and  their  constant  contact  w^ith  other  medieval 
tribes.  O^ving  to  their  geographical  location,  the  Lap- 
landers and  Esthonians  have  never  been  seriously  dis- 
turbed by  foreign  people  and  have  been  left  to  work 
out  their  own  salvation.  And  it  is  probably  for  this 
very  reason  that  these  people  have  made  comparatively 
little  progress  in  human  affairs.  The  Finnish  people, 
located  on  the  battleground  between  the  Scandinavians 
and  the  Slav,  have  been  overrun  and  oppressed  as  well 
as  protected  by  both. 

The  Finnish  woman  is  good  looking  but  not  beau- 
tiful, plain  but  not  ugly;  intellectual  but  very  human. 
She  walks  with  a peculiar  deliberate  step,  jabbing  her 
heel  into  the  sidewalk  in  a way  that  spells  “determina- 
tion” in  any  language.  She  swings  her  arms  with  the 
precision  of  one  who  means  business.  She  is  a verit- 
able reproduction  of  the  popular  conception  of  Portia 
in  the  Merchant  of  Venice.  She  is  feminine  but  not 
ethereal,  strong  but  not  masculine.  Such  women  breed 
strong  men — Finnish  men.  They  were  given  the 
elective  franchise  in  1906  and  immediately  made  use 
of  it  in  Finnish  fashion.  Some  twenty  were  elected  to 
seats  in  the  Finnish  Parliament.  The  majority  of  the 
employees  of  the  banks  are  women  and  they  appear 
side  by  side  with  the  men  in  most  of  the  walks  of 
life.  It  was  a woman  who  founded  the  first  really 
successful  temperance  society  in  Finland  thirty  years 
ago. 

While  the  Finnish  people  cling  to  Finnish  things 

77 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


with  most  unyielding  tenacity,  they  show  an  aston- 
ishing readiness  to  adopt  progressive  ideas.  They 
own  most  of  the  public  utilities ; their  laws  are  of  the 
most  advanced  type.  The  railway  station  agent  is 
also  the  postmaster,  the  custodian  of  the  postal  sav- 
ings bank  and  the  telegraph  operator  besides. 

Finland  {Suomi  or  Suommenmaa,  in  Finnish)  is 
a more  or  less  independent  Grand  Duchy,  bearing 
about  the  same  relation  to  Russia  as  Canada  does  to 
Great  Britain.  The  Tsar  is  the  Grand  Duke  of  Fin- 
land and  the  Governor  of  Finland,  an  appointee  of 
the  Tsar,  is  his  personal  representative.  It  has  its 


SELLING  MILK  AT  HELSINGFORS 


78 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 

own  postal  system,  its  own  coinage,  its  own  tariff 
system  and  an  independent  parliament,  whose  acts, 
however,  are  subject  to  the  veto  power  of  the  Tsar, 
its  Grand  Duke.  People  going  from  Finland  into 
Russia  or  from  Russia  into  Finland  are  subject  to 
customs  and  immigrant  regulations  just  as  though 
coming  or  going  into  foreign  countries.  Tariff  or 
customs  dues,  also  are  paid  both  ways. 

Christianity  was  introduced  in  1157,  practically 
the  entire  population  now  being  adherents  of  the 
Lutheran  church.  King  Eric  IX.  came  over  from 
Sweden  and  both  conquered  and  baptized  the  people. 
He  was  assisted  by  Henry,  Bishop  of  Upsala,  who 
was  afterwards  killed  and  canonized.  He  became  “St. 
Henry,”  patron  saint  of  Finland.  The  country,  for 
nearly  600  years,  was  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Sweden, 
whose  iron  rule  forced  upon  the  people  Swedish  laws, 
Swedish  religion  and  the  Swedish  language.  During 
all  that  time  the  country  was  frequently  overrun  by 
the  armies  of  both  Sweden  and  Russia,  the  stricken 
land  being  the  battleground  of  the  wars  between  the 
two  countries. 

In  1716  Peter  the  Great  secured  control  of  the 
entire  country  of  Finland,  and,  to  emphasize  his  con- 
trol and  to  make  secure  his  hold  on  the  Baltic  sea,  he 
built  the  city  of  Petrograd.  Charles  XH.  later  re- 
covered a part  of  the  territory,  all,  in  fact,  except  the 
province  of  Viborg.  Gustavus  HI.,  who  began  to 
reign  over  Sweden  in  1771,  conferred  upon  Finland 
certain  “fundamental  laws”  which  the  people  have 
succeeded  in  maintaining  ever  since.  In  another  war 
Gustavus  IV.  attempted  to  recover  Viborg,  but  he 
only  succeeded  in  losing  all  that  Sweden  had  gained 
in  that  country.  By  the  peace  of  1809,  Russia  again 
secured  control  over  the  whole  of  Finland,  including 


79 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


the  Aland  Islands.  But  Finland  came  back  under 
Russian  control  not  as  a conquered  province,  but  as  a 
semi-independent  Grand  Duchy,  Tsar  Alexander  I. 
recognizing  the  constitution  of  the  country  and  mak- 
ing oath  to  maintain  the  same.  All  went  well  until, 
under  the  influence  of  the  “Slavophile”  movement,  it 
was  proposed  to  “Russianize”  all  territory  under  the 
Russian  flag,  the  present  Tsar  issued  his  celebrated 
manifesto  of  February  15,  1899,  virtually  abrogating 
the  Finnish  diet  and  the  Finnish  constitution.  A 
military  law  followed  in  July,  1901,  practically  amal- 
gamating the  Russian  and  Finnish  forces.  The  Rus- 
sian language  and  Russian  officials  were  forced  upon 
the  people.  In  April,  the  Russian  Governor,  Gen- 
eral Bobrikov,  was  invested  with  dictatorial  powers 
and  proceeded  to  “Russianize”  the  country,  operating 
with  the  same  tyrannical  methods  that  he  had  pre- 
viously used  with  success  in  the  Lithuanian  provinces. 
A general  strike  followed  and  Bobrikov  was  killed  by 
a young  Finn  patriot.  By  the  Imperial  Manifesto  of 
November  7 the  status  quo  of  1899  was  restored.  It  is 
one  of  the  mockeries  of  history  that  General  Bobrikov 
was  appointed  on  August  30,  1898,  exactly  six  days 
after  the  Tsar  issued  his  famous  “Peace  Manifesto” 
of  August  24  of  that  year.  In  1910.  a renewed  at- 
tempt on  the  part  of  Russia  was  made  to  curtail  Fin- 
nish rights,  but  the  Finns  have  maintained  their  own 
fairly  well.  Some  of  the  issues  are  still  unsettled. 

One  cannot  travel  far  in  Finland  without  hear- 
ing that  old  jest  of  a certain  Karelian  who  was  so 
averse  to  walking  through  a field  of  rye  for  fear  of 
tramping  down  the  grain  that  he  got  four  men  to 
carry  him  through.  There  is  an  application  of  this 
same  principle  that  has  never  appealed  very  strongly 
to  the  Finnish  people.  The  man  who  is  so  afraid  of 

80 


COP.YRIGHT  BY  UNDERWOOD  & UNDERWOOD 


THE  IZByV  or  home  OF  A RUSSIAN  PEASANT 

PEASANT  HOMES  ARE  MADE  OF  LOGS  AND  OFTEN 
BURNED  BECAUSE  OF  THE  DRUNKEN  CARELESSNESS  OF 
THE  INMATES.  AN  EPIDEMIC  OF  DRUNKENNESS  ATTEND- 
ING FEAST  DAYS  IS  ACCOMPANIED  BY  AN  EPIDEMIC  OF 
FIRES.  THE  ENTIRE  FAMILY.  WITH  THE  SONS  AND 
DAUGHTERS,  THEIR  WIVES,  DAUGHTERS  AND  CHILDREN, 
ALL  LIVE  IN  THE  SAME  HOUSE  AND  HOLD  ALL  PROPERTY 
IN  COMMON.  THE  HEAD  OF  THE  FIOUSE,  USUALLY  THE 
OLDEST  OR  THE  KEENEST  IN  TRADE,  IS  CALLED  THE 
BOLSHAK  (BIG  ONE),  OR  BOLSHUKHA  IN  CASE  THE  “BIG 
ONE”  IS  A FEMALE.  THE  MIR,  OR  VILLAGE,  IS  MERELY 
AN  EXAGGERATED  FAMILY,  WITH  THE  STAROSTA  IN 
CHARGE  AS  THE  HEAD  OF  AFFAIRS.  EACH  MEMBER  OF 
THE  FAMILY  IS  RESPONSIBLE  FOR  THE  COMMON  DEBTS 
JUST  AS  EACH  FAMILY  OF  THE  MIR  IS  RESPONSIBLE  FOR 
THE  OBLIGATIONS  OF  THE  VILLAGE.  ALL  THAT  EACH 
ONE  EARNS,  WHETHER  HE  BE  AT  HOME  OR  WORKING 
ABROAD,  GOES  INTO  THE  COMMON  TREASURY.  EVEN  THE 
EARNINGS  OF  THE  ISVISCHIK  OR  THE  DVORNIK  IN  PETRO- 
GRAD,  LESS  ACTUAL  EXPENSES,  IS  SENT  HOME  TO  THE 
BOLSHAK  OF  THE  IZBA  WHENCE  HE  CAME. 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


the  ravages  of  intemperance  that  he  advocates  licens- 
ing people  to  sell  liquor  at  a profit  to  himself  has 
never  had  much  economic  standing  among  the  rugged 
natives  of  that  rugged  country. 

The  beginnings  of  the  temperance  reform  in  Fin- 
land were  contemporary  with  those  of  America.  In 
i8i6  and  again  in  1819,  the  Finnish  Home  Society 
offered  prizes  for  essays  against  distilleries.  In  1828, 
there  was  published  at  Abo,  in  the  Swedish  language, 
a tract  against  drink  and,  a year  later,  it  was  trans- 
lated and  published  in  Finnish.  In  1833,  there  was 
published  in  Petrograd  a tract  on  “The  Punishment 
of  Drunkenness.”  The  tract  was  published  in  the 
Finnish  language  and  is  supposed  to  have  been  a 
translation  from  the  English  by  Pastor  Henrik  Reng- 
wirt,  who  published  other  temperance  tracts  and  also 
circulated  a temperance  pledge.  His  propaganda  was 
against  indulgence  in  hrandvin,  a rye  or  potato  spirit, 
which  was  the  prevailing  Finnish  intoxicant.  In  1846, 
a temperance  society  was  formed  at  Jamsa  by  K.  A. 
Arvelin  with  an  initial  membership  of  seven  people, 
but  in  a year  it  had  grown  to  a membership  of  300. 
On  December  20,  1846,  another  temperance  society 
was  formed  at  Jywaskyla  by  P.  Smirnov,  and  by  Jan- 
uary, 1847,  it  had  a membership  of  fifty-three.  These; 
movements,  inspired  and  prompted  chiefly  by  Pastor 
Rengwirt,  died  out,  but  were  revived  again  in  1853. 
Pastor  Rengwirt  may  properly  be  designated  as  the 
pioneer  or  the  founder  of  the  temperance  reform  in 
Finland. 

The  second  stage  of  the  reform  was  initiated  and 
promoted  by  a woman.  In  1847,  ^ Finnish  matron, 
Hilda  Helman,  formed  a little  temperance  society  with 
a department  for  the  instruction  of  children.  Among 
the  things  taught  was  the  homely  truth  that  neither 

81 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


drinking  liquor  nor  selling  liquor  for  profit  resulted  in 
the  promotion  of  sobriety.  That  little  burr  of  truth 
stuck  to  the  Finnish  national  life.  In  1853,  a com- 
mittee was  formed  for  the  publication  and  dissemina- 
tion of  Finnish  literature.  This  was  the  work  of  St. 
Baranovski,  a Russian  professor  in  the  University  of 
Finland,  assisted  by  that  famous  Finnish  patriot,  J. 
W.  Snellman.  In  i860  this  committee  was  organized 
into  a society,  its  object  being  to  unite  all  the  Fin- 
nish temperance  people  into  a concern  for  the  promo- 
tion of  temperance  principles.  This  societ)^  was  merely 
a moderation  enterprise,  but,  on  October  15,  1883,  it 
organized  a total  abstinence  department  and  from  that 
time  its  growth  became  rapid. 

The  total  abstinence  movement  really  began  from 
the  work  of  a local  preacher  by  the  name  of  Broady 
who  had  returned  from  a visit  to  England.  On  July 
I,  1877,  Broady  delivered  a “total  abstinence”  lecture, 
which  resulted  in  the  formation  of  a total  abstinence 
society  at  Wasa.  The  same  year,  as  an  outcropping 
of  Hilda  Helman’s  work,  the  first  distinctively  chil- 
dren’s temperance  society  was  formed  at  Helsingfors. 
The  sentiment  of  the  times  is  indicated  by  the  dis- 
missal of  a school  teacher  at  Jacobstad,  a year  later, 
because  he  taught  the  children  that  alcoholic  drink 
made  one  drunk.  In  1881  a temperance  society  was 
formed  at  Abo  and  in  1882  one  was  formed  at  Hel- 
singfors. 

The  year  1883  a most  important  one  in  the 
history  of  the  temperance  reform  in  Finland.  In  that 
year,  the  society  at  Abo  began  the  publication  of  a 
temperance  periodical.  In  the  same  year  the  society 
at  Helsingfors  published  a book  on  the  question,  the 
facts  and  arguments  being  taken  largely  from  English 
sources.  The  book  was  extensively  circulated  through- 

82 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


out  the  country  and  led  to  the  reorganization  of  the 
old  society  of  Pastor  Rengwirt,  which  bore  the  name 
of  Kohtunden  Ystavat.  This  reorganization  took  place 
on  October  14,  1883.  The  society  immediately  began 
the  work  of  organizing  new  societies  along  lines  sim- 
ilar to  those  being  established  in  America  and  England. 
The  movement  was  inaugurated  in  the  first  temper- 
ance convention  ever  held  in  Finland,  that  of  1883. 
The  reform  was  placed  by  the  convention  on  a higher 
plane  than  it  had  occupied  before.  One  resolution 
passed  read,  “The  aim  of  the  temperance  societies  is 
to  move  alcoholic  drinks  to  the  chemist’s  shop,  which 
is  the  right  place  for  them.”  The  reorganized  society 
took  the  name  Raittenden  Ystavat  (Friends  of  Tem- 
perance) and  this  society  still  holds  the  leadership  ot 
the  reform  in  Finland.  It  now  owns  a one-half  in- 
terest in  a large  four-story  building  of  granite  in  Hel- 
singfors, where  its  headquarters  are  located,  and  re- 
ceives annual  grants  from  the  government. 

The  growth  of  the  temperance  societies  in  the 
early  stages  of  the  reform  in  Finland  is  indicated  by 
the  following: 


Year  No.  Societies  No.  Members 

1877 3 80 

1882  4 513 

1883  18  1,049 

1884  58  4.385 

1885  95  7,865 

1886  121  9,801 


The  Raittenden  Ystavat  has  published  a year  book 
almost  from  its  beginning  and  a large  amount  of  other 
temperance  literature. 

The  leading  spirit  in  the  formation  of  the  Rait- 
tenden Ystavat  was  Dr.  A.  A.  Granfelt,  a cultured  man 
of  noble  parentage,  a son  of  one  of  the  great  the- 

83 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


ologians  of  Finland.  He  was  educated  for  the  career 
of  a physician,  but  gave  up  the  practice  of  his  pro- 
fession to  devote  his  entire  time  to  the  temperance 
cause.  He  was,  for  many  years,  secretary  of  the  so- 
ciety and  became  known  throughout  the  world  for  his 
efforts  to  redeem  his  people  from  the  curse  of  alcohol. 
The  early  reformers  in  America  and  England  were  for 
the  most  part  men  and  women  from  the  lower  or 
middle  walks  of  life.  The  universities  and  colleges 
held  aloof.  But  the  reform  in  Finland,  from  its  early 
days,  has  been  promoted  largely  by  university  men. 
Dr.  Granfelt  himself,  besides  being  a college  man,  was 
a member  of  the  upper  house  of  the  Finnish  diet. 

In  1890,  we  find  the  formation  of  the  “Teachers’ 
Society  of  Health  and  Temperance,”  which,  in  con- 
junction with  the  Raittenden  Ystavat,  has  been  largely 
responsible  for  temperance  education  in  Finland  to 
this  day.  The  people  got  a breath  of  the  spirit  of 
Mary  H.  Hunt,  and  two  years  later  the  first  scientific 
temperance  text  book  was  published  and  the  educa- 
tional propaganda  was  begun  under  the  guidance  of 
Mrs.  Ali  Trygg  Helenius,  wife  of  Dr.  Matti  Helenius- 
Seppala,  of  the  University  of  Helsingfors,  a member 
of  the  Finnish  Parliament.  She  was  president  of  the 
Woman’s  Christian  Temperance  Union  of  Finland. 
When  the  history  of  the  temperance  reform  in  Finland 
shall  have  been  written,  these  two  will  stand  out  clear 
on  the  horizon  as  the  Neal  Dow  and  the  Frances  Wil- 
lard of  that  country.  The  reforms  in  that  land  for  the 
last  twenty  years,  since  the  days  of  Dr.  Granfelt,  all 
point  to  Prof,  and  Madame  Helenius,  of  Helsingfors. 
One  cannot  read  far  into  temperance  literature  with- 
out meeting  some  of  the  writings  of  this  remarkable 
couple ; the  reformer,  patriot,  linguist,  and  that  won- 
derful woman,  Ali  Trygg  Helenius,  his  wife. 

84 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


While  this  temperance  reform  in  Finland  was 
born  of  woman  and  nursed  into  life  under  the  breath 
of  university  influence,  the  rugged  agitation  that  found 
voice  in  legislation  was  partly  due  to  the  organized 
workingmen  of  Finland,  the  chief  suf- 
ferers of  the  drink  traffic.  The  work- 
ingman, direct  and  to  the  point  in  his 
mental  processes,  reasoned  that  what 
had  been  inflicted  upon  the  people  un- 
der the  protection  and  under  the  au- 
thorization of  law  could  be  removed  in 
the  same  manner.  At  the  second  gen- 
eral meeting  of  the  organized  workers 
of  Finland,  held  at  Tammerfors  in 
1896,  the  following  resolution  was  adopt- 
ed : “The  meeting  recognizes  strict 


A MOONSHINE  STILL  IN  FINLAND 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


temperance  as  the  correct  principle  in  regard  both  to 
the  individual  advocate  of  the  workers’  movement  and 
the  efforts  of  the  workers’  societies.”  The  successful 
mover  of  this  resolution  in  his  address  advocated  a 
general  workers’  “strike”  against  drink,  but  he  was  a 
trifle  ahead  of  his  day.  It  was  discussed,  but  time  was 
needed  for  the  establishment  of  the  idea.  But  two 
years  later  the  scheme  took  tangible  form.  Two  work- 
ingmen of  Kota,  Kalle  Heikkila  and  Emil  Andersson, 
called  a meeting  for  the  purpose  of  launching  this  very 
“strike”  idea.  The  meeting  was  held  in  the  city  of 
Kota,  on  March  6,  1898.  For  a beginning  it  was  de- 
cided that,  for  a period  of  one  year,  from  May  i,  1898, 
to  May  I,  1899,  they  would  observe  strict  abstinence 
from  all  kinds  of  intoxicating  beverages,  including 
wine  and  beer. 

The  movement,  doubtless,  would  have  been  a 
local  one  had  not  another  Finnish  genius  risen  to  the 
needs  of  the  occasion.  Dr.  Konr.  Relander,  just 
elected  to  the  superintendency  of  the  Workingmen’s 
Society  of  Uleaborg,  caught  the  vision.  He  called  a 
meeting  of  workingmen  at  Uleaborg  and  organized 
the  movement  on  a national  scale.  Dr.  Relander’s 
name  carried  with  it  confidence  and  authority  wher- 
ever the  Finnish  language  was  spoken.  Circulars  and 
appeals  were  sent  out  over  the  country  and  the  unique 
strike  reached  enormous  proportions.  It  was  found 
that  70,000  workingmen  and  women  of  all  classes  of 
society  had  enlisted  in  the  “strike  against  alcohol.” 
On  May  i,  the  “strikers”  held  great  open-air  meet- 
ings, the  like  of  which  Finland  had  never  seen.  In 
Tammerfors,  the  great  manufacturing  city,  out  of  a 
population  of  27,000  people,  8,000  joined  the  strike. 

This  violent  agitation  of  the  thought  and  con- 
science of  the  people  could  have  but  one  result.  The 

86 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


demand  arose  that  the  drink  shops  that  had  been  es- 
tablished by  law  be  removed  by  law.  The  people  de- 
clared that  the  time  had  come  when  drunkenness 
should  no  longer  be  promoted  by  authority  of  the 
statutes  of  Finland.  Democracy,  unlike  despotism,  is 
direct  in  its  attacks.  No  Daniel  is  needed  to  interpret 
its  resolutions.  And  so,  when  representatives  of  all 
the  “strike  leagues”  met  at  Tammerfors,  on  Novem- 
ber 14  and  15,  1898,  all  were  ready  for  progressive  and 
radical  action.  Among  the  resolutions  passed  by  the 
convention,  the  following  were  unanimously  agreed 
upon : 

1.  Speakers  on  temperance  must  be  supplied,  at  least  one 
in  every  county.  They  should  work  everywhere,  in  the  cities  as 
well  as  in  the  country,  organizing  Strike  Leagues  and  temper- 
ance societies,  and  spreading  temperance  literature. 

2.  A board  of  nine  members  should  prepare  a universal 
program  of  work,  and  the  plan  for  future  arrangement  and 
prosperity  of  the  movement. 

3.  The  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks  should 
be  regarded  as  unworthy  and  disgraceful  employment  in  which 
no  honest  man  should  be  engaged. 

4.  To  be  drunk,  during  office  hours  especially,  but  also  out- 
side of  such,  should  be  considered  so  great  a crime  as  to  make 
any  person  guilty  thereof  entirely  unfit  for  any  office  whatever, 
whether  it  be  that  of  state,  of  the  community  or  of  the  private 
individual. 

5.  Those  taking  part  in  the  strike  movement  should,  pro- 
vided other  interests  are  not  at  stake,  always  vote  for  such 
candidates  to  the  Landtdag  (parliament)  or  to  the  city  council 
as  are  willing  to  advance  prohibitory  laws,  and  by  virtue  of  ex- 
isting laws  promote  the  temperance  cause  as  much  as  possible. 

6.  Instruction  concerning  the  effects  of  alcoholic  drinks, 
based  upon  scientific  facts,  should  be  introduced  into  the  schools. 

7.  The  chief  aim  of  the  Strike  League  Against  Intoxicat- 
ing Drinks  is  to  effect  strict  Prohibition  of  all  sale,  manufacture 
and  importation  of  intoxicating  drinks.  In  the  next  session  of 
the  Landtdag  should  be  introduced  a giant  petition,  with  signa- 
tures from  all  parts  of  the  country,  in  which  the  government 

87 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


should  be  requested  to  enact  such  measures  as  are  necessary  for 
the  realization  of  the  Prohibition  laws. 

It  was  this  agitation  that  gave  impetus  to  legisla- 
tion against  the  traffic  in  debauchery,  which  was 
already  well  under  way.  The  year  before  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Raittenden  Ystavat,  the  government  of 
Finland  passed  an  act  allowing  municipalities  to  adopt 
the  so-called  “Gothenburg  system”  of  selling  liquor 
and  granting  local  option  to  the  rural  districts.  Un- 
der the  local  option  feature  of  this  law,  the  people 
lost  but  little  time  in  driving  the  drink  traffic  out  of 
the  greater  part  of  the  country.  In  a report  made  to 
the  World’s  Temperance  Congress  held  in  London  in 
1900,  Dr.  Helenius  stated  that  of  the  422  parishes, 
representing  a population  of  nearly  2,000,000  people, 
all  had  voted  out  the  traffic  except  nine. 

Under  the  Gothenburg  system,  private  corpora- 
tions of  alleged  “disinterested”  men  take  over  the 
retail  traffic.  The  stockholders  receive  6 per  cent  of 
the  profits.  Of  the  balance,  three-fifths  go  to  various 
philanthropic  purposes  in  the  city  where  the  concern 
is  located.  The  other  two-fifths  go  to  the  improve- 
ment of  roads.  The  sale  of  beer  and  wine  was  also 
largely  controlled  by  the  benevolent  monopoly.  The 
laws  were  to  be  strictly  obeyed  and,  in  theory,  the 
drinking  of  the  people  was  to  be  discouraged.  The 
operations  of  the  law  did  not  work  out  according  to 
the  theory.  The  temperance  people,  for  the  most 
part,  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  liquor  selling. 
The  companies,  therefore,  drifted  into  the  control  of 
politicians  and  persons  interested  in  the  manufacture 
of  liquor,  and  who,  for  other  reasons  than  their  divi- 
dends, were  interested  in  large  sales  of  drink.  The 
temperance  people  promoted  the  local  option  cam- 
paigns against  the  drink  shops  and  fought  the  “Goth- 

88 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


enburg”  liquor  shops.  At  the  International  Congress 
Against  the  Abuse  of  Alcohol,  held  in  Christiania, 
Norway,  in  September,  1890,  Edw.  Bjorkenheim,  rep- 
resentative of  Finland,  said: 

“The  experiences  of  Finland  with  the  Gothenburg  system  do 
not  run  in  a favorable  direction,  and  it  is  evident  that  there  is 
a strong  current  of  opinion  against  it  in  the  country.  Especially 
is  this  the  case  in  temperance  circles,  that  is,  among  people  who, 
provided  the  system  would  answer  its  professed  object — to 
further  the  interest  of  temperance  and  morals — would  be  the 
first  to  hail  it  as  a valued  friend  and  ally.  . . . 

“Temperance  sentiment  in  Finland  is  unanimously  and  de- 
cidedly against  the  Gothenburg  system ; and  should  this  system 
as  it  is  now  organized,  have  a future  in  our  country,  then  in  the 
constitution  of  the  various  companies  it  must  be  laid  down : 

“(i)  That  the  net  profits  without  deductions  be  paid  over 
to  the  state  exchequer. 

“(2)  That  their  operations  be  put  under  strong  and  special 
public  control ; and 

“(3)  That  every  allusion  to  their  presumed  furtherance  of 
moral  and  temperance  progress  be  suppressed.” 

Changes  have  been  made  from  time  to  time  in 
the  details  of  the  law.  As  it  stood  at  the  breaking 
out  of  the  European  war  in  1914,  legislation  in  regard 
to  alcoholic  drink  is  divided  into  three  classes : 

First.  Liquors  that  contain  more  than  22  per 
cent  alcohol.  This  class  is  composed  entirely  of 
spirits. 

Second.  Liquors  that  contain  from  4 to  22  per 
cent  alcohol.  This  class  covers  wine,  punsch,  etc. 

Third.  Liquors  that  contain  less  than  4 per  cent 
alcohol.  This  class  covers  the  beer. 

“Disinterested  management”  has  a monopoly  of 
the  entire  first  class.  In  some  places  it  has  the 
monopoly  of  all  classes  of  liquors.  Three-fifths  of 
the  profits  go  to  the  community  to  be  used  in  parks 
and  things  outside  the  usual  subjects  of  taxation.  The 

89 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


other  two-fifths  go  to  the  state  to  be  used  in  extend- 
ing railway  systems.  Appropriations  are  made  to 
temperance  societies.  The  stockholders  get  6 per 
cent  dividends,  the  usual  rates  of  interest  being  7 and 
8.  The  stockholders  are  usually  politicians  and  friends 
of  the  distillers  who  have  a direct  interest  in  promot- 
ing sales  instead  of  curtailing  them.  Certain  local 
option  features  have  been  extended  to  the  cities.  The 
city  council  and  mayor  can  abolish  the  saloons  with- 
out reference  to  an)^  higher  power.  If,  however,  the 
city  council  votes  out  the  saloons  and  the  mayor  dis- 
approves, the  question  is  referred  to  the  governor  of 
the  province  for  decision. 

There  are  now  something  like  80,000  members  of 
temperance  societies  in  Finland.  The  membership  of 
the  leading  societies  is  approximately  as  follows: 


Raittenden  Ystavat  25,000 

Finlands  Svenska  Nykterhetsforbund  (Swed- 
ish Temperance  Societ}'  of  Finland) 14,000 

College  Student  Abstainers  8,000 

Abstaining  Railway  Men  1,000 

Women’s  Christian  Temperance  Union 500 


There  is  also  a temperance  organization  among 
the  physicians. 

The  attempt  to  “Russianize”  Finland  in  1904, 
which  resulted  in  the  killing  of  the  tyrant  Governor 
Bobrikov  and  the  general  strike  of  1905,  led  to  a re- 
formed diet  and  several  legal  reforms.  The  olden 
Four  Estates  were  superseded  by  a parliament  of  2CO 
members.  The  new  reformed  law  also  raised  the 
number  of  legal  voters  from  about  100,000  to  1,250,000, 
nearly  50  per  cent  of  the  entire  population.  It  was 
then  (1906)  that  women  came  into  full  suffrage. 

At  the  first  election,  in  1906,  the  voters  chose  a 
90 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


new  parliament,  twenty-five  of  whose  members  were 
women.  And  when  the  parliament  assembled,  in 
1907,  one  of  its  first  acts  was  to  pass  a Prohibition 
law  of  the  most  drastic  nature  (October  21,  1907). 
The  absolute  prohibition  of  all  kinds  of  alcoholic  liquor 
was  decreed.  A man  could  not  even  have  liquor  in 
his  house,  and  wine  for  the  sacrament  was  even  for- 
bidden. In  the  debates,  one  member  declared  that 
he  did  not  see  why  churches  should  be  the  only 
taverns  in  the  country.  The  bill,  which  was  passed 
on  October  31,  1907,  contained  a paragraph  to  the 
effect  that  it  should  become  operative  on  July  i,  1909. 
The  Finnish  senate,  which 
is  the  local  government,  re- 
fused to  recommend  to  the 
governor  that  the  law  be 
approved.  The  date  for  the 
taking  effect  of  the  law  was 
therefore  passed  without  the 
Imperial  approval,  and  the 
whole  law  consequently  be- 
came void. 

At  the  second  session  of 
parliament  the  same  bill 
was  again  passed.  This  time 
an  impression  was  made  on 
Petrograd.  The  Imperial 
government  began  some  ne- 
gotiations with  the  Ducal 
government  at  Finland  look- 
ing to  some  modifications 
of  the  law  as  the  price  of  The  Market 

Imperial  approval.  Up  to  Helsingfors 

this  writing  (March,  1915),  the  negotiations  are  still 
in  progress,  and  the  prohibition  bill  has  not  yet 


91 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


(March,  1915)  become  a law.  The  motive  for  this 
act  on  the  part  of  the  Tsar  has  been  erroneously  at- 
tributed to  his  reluctance  to  losing  the  revenue  of 
Finnish  spirits  under  the  Russian  liquor  monopoly. 
This  idea  is  a mistaken  one,  for  the  reason  that  the 
Russian  liquor  monopoly  did  not  extend  to  Finland. 
The  liquor  business  in  Finland  is  under  the  control  of 
the  Finnish  government,  except  as  the  Tsar,  as  Grand 
Duke  of  Finland,  has  the  veto  power  over  acts  of  the 
Finnish  parliament. 

Prior  to  1864,  the  peasants  had  the  right  to  distill 
liquor  at  their  homes,  and  about  20,000  home  stills 
were  in  operation  in  a population  of  one  and  two- 
thirds  millions  of  people.  The  annual  consumption 
of  liquor  per  capita  reached  about  twenty  liters.  In 
1864,  the  peasants  renounced  the  right  of  private  dis- 
tillation, and  since  then  the  distillation  has  been  un- 
der state  control,  with  high  taxes.  Later,  the  Gothen- 
burg system  with  local  option  was  introduced  as  state 
supra.  Where  the  Gothenburg  system  was  in  vogue, 
the  consumption  of  liquor  was  not  much  affected,  but 
in  the  rural  districts,  nearly  all  of  which  adopted  the 
prohibition  policy,  the  drink  was  well  nigh  annihili- 
lated.  By  1895  tbe  consumption  of  spirits  per  capita 
had  dropped  to  about  1.84  liters  for  the  whole  coun- 
try. It  has  increased  slightly  since  then.  There  is 
not  a workman’s  club  in  all  Finland  where  drink  is 
sold.  There  is  not  a Socialist  or  labor  newspaper  in 
all  Finland  that  will  accept  any  sort  of  liquor  adver- 
tisements. 

While  it  is  true  that  Finland  makes  its  own  laws 
subject  to  Imperial  approval,  it  is  also  true  that  the 
Grand  Duchy  is  under  the  supreme  military  jurisdic- 
tion of  Petrograd.  At  about  the  same  time  that  the 
traffic  in  vodka  was  eliminated  in  Russia  because  of 


92 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


the  war  of  1914,  the  same  was  prohibited  in  those  sec- 
tions of  Finland  which  were  declared  to  be  under 
military  law.  The  text  of  the  order  of  the  Governor 
General  of  Finland  declaring  this  policy  was  as  fol- 
lows : 

“The  inhabitants  of  the  localities  declared  to  be  in  the  state 
of  war  are  hereby  notified  that  the  Commander-in-Chief  has 
issued  orders  forbidding  in  Finland  the  sale  of  whisky  and  other 
alcoholic  drinks  until  the  end  of  the  war. 

“Any  violation  of  these  orders  is  punishable  in  accordance 
with  my  orders,  issued  on  November  24,  1914,  without  any  court 
trial,  by  imprisonment  for  a period  not  exceeding  three  months, 
or  by  a money  fine,  not  exceeding  8,000  marks.”* 

Because  the  liquor  traffic  in  Finland  was  con- 
fined almost  entirely  to  the  large  cities,  all  of  which 
were  under  military  rule,  the  order  practically  elim- 
inated the  drink  traffic  from  the  entire  country. 

*Russkoye  Slovo  (New  York),  March  4,  1915. 


93 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


STATISTICS  OF  DENATURED  ALCOHOL  FOR  FINLAND 

( From  the  Tionde  Argangen  for  1912.) 


YEAR 

ALCOHOL 

FOR  FUEL 

TOTAL 

1893  

• 23,339 

127,758 

1894  

19,817 

201,912 

1895  

46,617 

253,750 

1896  

51,509 

300,859 

1897  

77,998 

269,295 

1898  

114,409 

313,055 

1899  

157,344 

367,913 

1900  

183,667 

371,693 

1901  

207,775 

428,371 

1902  

168,238 

385.439 

1903  

219,953 

413.556 

1904  

229,353 

418,973 

1 90s  

237,020 

444,678 

1906  

246,037 

407,898 

1907  

340,926 

516,931 

1908  

338,21s 

537.035 

1909  

355,482 

517,037 

1910  

480,531 

728,824 

I9II  

478,810 

702,397 

STATISTICS  OF  MALT  LIQUORS  FOR  FINLAND. 

(From  the  Tionde  Argangen  (Statistical  Year  Book)  for  1912.) 


YEAR 

NUMBER 

OF 

BREWERIES 

NUMBER 

OF 

WORKERS 

VALUE  OF 

PRODUCT 

IN  MARKS 

BEER 

AND 

PORTER 

*SMALL 

BEER 

1891  

89 

1,411 

7,113,910 

24,931,485 

1892  

91 

1,309 

6,127,804 

21,744,498 

1893  

87 

1,136 

5,561,254 

19,347,146 

1894  

87 

1,182 

5,350,285 

18,840,575 

1895  

88 

1,267 

6,188,487 

22,019,457 

1896  

87 

1,352 

7,016,014 

25,372,360 

1897  

88 

1,451 

7,951,882 

27,780,236 

1898  

87 

1,509 

8,054,540 

29,569,01^ 

1899  

89 

1,571 

8,873,761 

26,994,395 

7.975,570 

1900  

87 

1,559 

8,003,051 

28,595,768 

7,732,192 

1901  

87 

1,508 

8,476,095 

28,091,372 

7,164,806 

1902  

85 

1,465 

7,254,100 

24,699,346 

8,931.170 

1903  

90 

1,421 

6,641,900 

19,200,264 

3,145,379 

1904  

89 

1,246 

6,506,737 

20,378,564 

5,643,331 

190S  

89 

1,257 

6,717,600 

20,972,737 

4,996,416 

1906  

86 

1,280 

7,507,000 

23,464,406 

6,354,172 

1907  

90 

1,390 

8,785,500 

27,930,394 

5,699,020 

1908  

88 

1,31s 

7,242,700 

18,054,580 

2,916,218 

*Records  incomplete. 


94 


THE  STORY  OF  FINLAND 


PRODUCTION  OF  DISTILLED  SPIRITS  IN  FINLAND 
(From  the  Tionde  Argangen  for  1912.) 


YEAR 

NUMBER  OF 

ESTABLISH- 

MENTS 

PRODUCTION  IN 
LITERS  OF  SO  PER 
CENT  ALCOHOL 

1871  

44 

6,391,234 

1872  

52 

7,989,288 

1873  

& 

9,750,978 

1874  

62 

10,838,977 

1875  

62 

11,240,371 

1876  

64 

11,209,318 

1877  

63 

10,838,712 

1878  

64 

10,563,022 

1879  

60 

8,116,304 

1880  

56 

6,268,029 

1881  

9,294,292 

1882  

66 

10,296,734 

1883  

70 

11,045,171 

1884  

71 

11,284,693 

1885  

69 

11,285,427 

1886  

66 

11,331,202 

1887 

51 

5,700,491 

1888  

35 

4,280,085 

1889  

48- 

7,054,060 

1890  

45 

7,749,346 

1891  

46 

7,685,734 

1892  

39 

6,766,194 

1893  

30 

5,031,799 

1894  

33 

7,033,298 

1895  

26 

5,122,759 

1896  

27 

6,076,906 

1897  

31 

8,311,694 

1898  

26 

6,768,287 

1899  

28 

8,598,306 

1900  

29 

10,017,697 

1901  

26 

6,833,543 

1902  

24 

6,518,554 

1903  

24 

6,062,998 

1904  

23 

6,465,100 

1905  

28 

8,246,906 

1906  

23 

6,844,499 

1907  

20 

6,247,887 

1908  

22 

6,361,775 

1900  

26 

7,979,933 

95 


s eo 

a CO  oo^s 
5 'o  ■^o^  *0 
roCcOsOCO 

30tN.rs.— 
N 'O  *^10  ^S. 


T^  .-s  00 
VO  CO  o 

00  CVJ  ^ 

*rrrj  oor 
o a\  o 0 
rs.  c • 


c 

CO  0\  f*5 
^rs,cg 


oa  ■*r  cv 

^ ^ ^ evj" 


lOOO\Oir)I>.C'300f>»tN.»O-" 
■f^ow^u^voootfjOTrcgtN. 

cva  VO  ^s.  c »-' 


o ca  VO  o\  rr  »■ 


oocvifooocovovmN.of>* 

moooov^ooovrvirjcvjt-H 

0\  C\  ^ TT  o\  cva  o CO  iN»  •-' 
w.— ’’i/^^u^'rTvoofcoovcoovO*^ 
ovoc>aovcx\ors.'co*-'cvaooc** 


-HCOv/^ONOVf-s.r^VOOvCvvC'^OO 
Tw^tvooc'au^rr'Oovct^OvtN. 
COOvfN.Cvi'ar^T^^r^sOvOcvJ^ 
ot^"5j"w^o^mvor^p^  ^rCo 
tN.OO^'^tN.CVlC— *tr>CvOO'VO 
CVJf^f^CvJ— 'CSJCvjCgCVJCM^r^C'a 


CvOrx00vO'T3-O'>J'00»^«r;ir>  — 
OOOOVOVCVO— Ot>.OtN»(vj,—r t>, 

•^r^o^oo  o^^oo»-«  — f^c^ov 
VO  rv  ^ oroTc^io  VO  u^rvvo*  — * o^ 
«^OOCOOOvOOO'Ovca»00'OCOO 
cv)^cv)^f-'>-4<-^<-icvacva^cvaM 


^IOIOVOOVOCQO'00^'0<010 

is.fvaioTrovov^^iofO'O-^r^. 

OOOC^VO’-^^OvOrorvO^^ 

■^cocor^cocv^ootCo^^^^tCoo^ 

^cvji—^  F*  »-H  fo  ^ ro  VO  ^ fO 


r'vrapoTrcvooovorfO'ioovoir'a 
TT  CO  oa 'O  00  — ^ to  VO  lo  VO  « ^ 
*-*votN.r«»t— fot>*^voov'CrN.ro 
cot>.cot>.r>.fo"^<^v£r^*o'»OfO 
Ovvocvavooaooofo^ocoo 
i-«cvacva»-<^c'acvacvaoac>acvafo<o 


1^. 


'oooorvvoc-^rrooooo 
vovOOCOO^vosOvOOOvovoj 
cc^aoO'^^vC^^cocv^^o'OvDo  — 


»-^\0Ovot>»f00\fN..\0O"£0C 

-fors.vo'^^or^.c'accveoov 
po  VO  ^co -^r  VO  o 00  ovo  VO  ^s,  — 
OVO  •“«  ■^0CCV^^s*'O  Cv* 

•ots.rs.tx^'Ovof'^’rvo^tNk 


ooocaoowoovoooo 

lOvoOVOvovovovoo-^OCvo 

oaovootN.povorj-^coca<nrvC' 


txrN.rovo*-iso»— ’a-^rgC'T-cCv 
cvaO'OT^c^avoOfOlov^'^voc^J 
OfOoavoOvovoeoO-HOCvj^ 
vovOvOOvCOvoCvrvVCvo  — ^s^ 
00'Ol>»'0^vor«vfOvovOCv  — 
^a^-lc^a«-«^c«ac^ac>apocvac'a<^a^o 

*.  ca  ov  cva  o N VO  VO  VO  fo  cva  cc  VO 

5 eva  o ^ p^  po  ^ cv  VO  Ov  <n  VO  Ov  po  , 

VO*  00  oT  — *■  cT  00  00  VO^CV*^©  — VO  Ov 
vo^'^rvporx^r^porvai^^vo 
PO^^POPOPO^POVOVOVOVOVO 


ovo  — cvapo^vo©r>.co©©«-< 
©ooooococoo-^-^ 
OOOvCv^OvOvOvCvCvwVCvOvOv 


A CORNER  IN  OLD  RIGA 

SHOWING  PETER'S  CHURCH  AND  CONVENT  HEILIGEN  GEIST 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  BALTIC  PROVINCES. 

The  history  and  conditions  of  the  so- 
called  “Baltic  Provinces,”  Courland, 
Esthonia  and  Livonia,  are  so  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  remainder  of 
Russia  that  it  is  necessary  to  treat  of  them  in 
a separate  chapter.  These  provinces  lie  along 
the  Baltic  Sea  and  the  Gulf  of  Finland.  The 
people  are  made  up  chiefly  of  Letts,  Lithu- 
anians and  Esthqnians.  The  Esthonians 
belong  to  the  same  racial  stock  as  the  Finns,  the 
Lapps,  and  the  Maygars  of  Austria.  The  Letts  and 
Lithuanians  are  allied  peoples,  though  the  latter,  be- 
cause of  their  long  contact  and  association  with  the 
Poles,  partake  about  as  much  of  Polish  characteristics 
as  of  the  Lettish.  Their  language,  the  Lithuanian  or 
Lettausch,  is  a strange  mixture  of  Lettish  and  Polish. 
There  is  no  linguistic  or  racial  connection  between 
these  people  and  the  Esthonians,  who  are  their  hered- 
itary enemies. 

The  Esthonians  inhabit  chiefly  the  province  of 
Esthonia,  the  chief  city  of  which  is  Revel,  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Gulf  of  Finland.  The  Letts  live  in  the 
provinces  of  Livonia  and  in  the  old  Duchy  of  Cour- 
land, the  chief  city  of  which  is  Riga.  The  Lithuan- 
ians are  more  to  the  south,  in  the  provinces  of  Kovno 
and  Wilna.  For  centuries  the  Lithuanians  maintain- 
ed a pretty  complete  independent  existence,  first  un- 
der the  princes  of  Lithuania,  then  under  the  kings  of 
Lithuania,  later  as  a duchy  under  the  King  of  Poland. 
Altogether,  these  races  comprise  nearly  5,000,000 

97 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


people.  Originally,  the  Esthonians  were  addicted  to 
piracy  and  made  themselves  a terror  to  merchant 
traders  on  the  Baltic  Sea.  In  1195-6  Canute  VI.  con- 
quered the  Esthonians  and  baptized  them  by  force. 
But  they  promptly  returned  to  their  old  ways  when 
the  King  left  the  country.  Courland  was  originally 
peopled  by  the  Cours,  a Lettish  tribe,  but  their  sep- 
arate identity  as  a tribe  has  long  since  been  lost. 
Revel  was  founded  by  Waldemar  II.  in  1219  and  an- 
nexed to  the  Danish  crown.  But  in  1224  came  the 
Germans,  who  overran  and  conquered  Livonia,  Es- 
thonia  and  Courland,  under  the  leadership  of  the 
Brethren  of  the  Sword.  For  a couple  centuries,  the 
Bishop  exercised  local  temporal  power,  under  the 
Hanseatic  League,  which  was  in  commercial  control. 
While  the  sovereignty  of  the  country  was  banded 
about  by  Sweden,  Poland  and  Russia,  the  real  control 
of  affairs  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  German  barons. 
For  six  hundred  years  the  German  overlords  ground 
down  these  people  into  serfdom  of  the  most  galling 
sort.  Even  most  of  the  land  to  this  day  is  owned  by 
descendants  of  these  German  nobles.  These  German 
estates  are  unusually  large,  averaging  from  9,500  to 
11,000  acres  in  size.  Esthonia  and  Livonia  came  un- 
der complete  control  of  Russia  by  the  Treaty  of 
Nystad  in  1721.  In  1795,  the  assembly  of  nobles  of 
the  Duchy  of  Courland  placed  their  country  under 
Russian  jurisdiction.  Serfdom,  which  had  been  fasten- 
ed upon  the  people  by  the  Germans  for  so  many  cen- 
turies, was  abolished  under  Alexander  1.  in  Esthonia 
in  1817  and  in  Livonia  in  1819.  For  a time  these 
Baltic  provinces  continued  a sort  of  a collective  gov- 
ernment, under  the  Russian  flag,  but  this  was  abol- 
ished in  1876. 

While  the  Esthonians  have  an  hereditary  enmity 
98 


THE  BALTIC  PROVINCES 


to  the  Letts  and  Lithuanians,  all  three  elements  are 
united  in  hatred  to  the  Germans,  who  held  them  in 
serfdom  for  six  centuries,  after  robbing  them  of  their 
lands  and  homes.  The  German  barons  still  hold  the 
lands  and  also  numerous  hereditary  privileges,  which 
adds  to  the  inherent  anti-German  feeling.  Among 
these  ancient  hereditary  baronial  privileges  is  that  of 
brewing  beer.  For  some  years  the  Russian  govern- 
ment has  sought  to  underwrite  or  redeem  these  brew- 
ery privileges,  but  without  success.  The  difficulty  in 
the  way  has  been  the  failure  to  agree  upon  a price 
which  the  barons  were  willing  to  accept  for  relinquish- 
ing their  privileges.  The  fact  that  the  breweries  are 
controlled  by  those  whom  they  regard  as  oppressors 
makes  it  easy  for  the  Lettish  people  to  espouse  tem- 
perance principles.  They  are  a restive,  turbulent  peo- 
ple, who  do  not  take  kindly  to  the  prevailing  economic 
system  and  are  chronic  insurgents.  Had  they  been  a 
more  numerous  people  and  had  they  not  been  so  situ- 
ated geographically  that  their  territory  was  period- 
ically overrun  by  the  armies  of  stronger  nations,  the 
Letts  would,  beyond  a doubt,  have  become  a great 
people. 

This  feeling  against  their  German  overlords  had 
an  opportunity  to  express  itself  just  after  the  close  of 
the  war  between  Russia  and  Japan.  At  that  time, 
unrest  throughout  the  Tsar’s  domain  was  very  gen- 
eral, and  fires  of  insurrection  broke  out  in  many  direc- 
tions. The  Lett^feeling  that  their  hour  had  come  to 
act,  arose  in  revolt. , Their  revolt  was  not  directed 
so  much  against  the  rule  of  the  Tsar — that  was  far 
away.  It  was  directed  more  against  their  local  Ger- 
man landlords.  As  is  usual  among  people  long  in 
servitude  and  cherishing  bitter  grievances,  the  insur- 
rection took  the  form  of  fearful  excesses  and  outrages 

99 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


of  all  sorts  committed  against  those  whom  they  re- 
garded as  their  oppressors.  In  self  protection,  the 
land  owners  appealed  to  Petrograd,  making  common 
cause  with  the  government  against  the  peasant  classes. 
This  insurrection  was  quelled  in  the  most  ruthless 
Russian  fashion  by  General  Bobrikov,  who  wreaked 
vengeance  upon  the  peasants  by  inflicting  upon  them, 
with  compound  interest,  the  outrages  that  they  had 
visited  upon  the  landlords.  Since  then  the  land  of 
the  Letts  has  been  more  or  less  of  an  armed  camp, 
about  7,000  Russian  soldiers  being  constantly  quarter- 
ed in  their  section. 

It  is  because  temperance  activities  in  these  prov- 
inces have  been  so  generally  promoted  by  the  revolu- 
tionary element  that  the  Russian  government  has 
always  been  suspicious  of  the  Baltic  anti-alcohol  re- 
formers. The  German  brewers  were  more  influential 
with  the  Russian  governor  than  the  peasant  and 
tenant  class.  And  there  is  some  justification  for  this 
feeling  of  suspicion  in  Russian  circles.  Mr.  Jean 
Seskis,  the  editor  of  Dsmitenes  Wehstnesis,  the  largest 
daily  paper  in  Riga,  and  which  is  published  in  the 
Lettish  language,  told  me  in  1913  that  the  “temper- 
ance movement  and  the  revolutionary  movement  are 
one  and  the  same  thing.”  It  represents  a revolt 
against  the  baronial  brewer  and  the  Russian  govern- 
ment vodka  monopoly. 

There  have  been  at  least  three  distinct  “temper- 
ance movements”  in  these  Baltic  provinces,  and  it  is  a 
satisfaction  to  Americans  to  know  that  the  first  move- 
ment was  of  distinctly  American  origin.  In  1835,  Rev. 
Robert  Baird  went  to  Germany  and  there  published  a 
German  translation  of  his  History  of  Temperance  So- 
cieties in  America,  distributing  30,000  copies  in  that 
country.  He  visited  Petrograd  and  was  received  by 


100 


THE  BALTIC  PROVINCES 


the  Tsar,  but  the  chief  results  of  his  Russian  work 
were  among  the  Lettish  people.  In  1836  Pastor  Sok- 
owlsky,  of  Roop,  near  Riga,  published  some  informa- 
tion respecting  American  temperance  societies  ob- 
tained from  Baird  in  a journal  called  News  from  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven.  Some  of  the  people  thereupon 
decided  to  form  a society  of  the  same  kind.  They 
drew  up  rules  for  such  a society,  which,  under  date  of 
August  26,  1842,  they  submitted  to  the  provincial  gov- 
ernor for  approval.  The  governor  forwarded  the  rules 
to  Petrograd  for  instructions.  In  a few  months,  the 
Imperial  government  replied,  forbidding  the  forma- 
tion of  such  societies  “lest  they  should  be  mistaken 
for  separate  religious  sects.”*  But,  in  the  meantime, 
the  agitation  continued  and  the  formation  of  temper- 
ance societies  had  been  progressing  without  authority. 
In  1837,  Pastor  Dobbner,  of  Neuen,  Muhlen,  published 
some  matter  respecting  American  temperance  societies 
at  the  expense  of  the  Patriotic  Club  of  Riga.  About 
the  same  time.  Pastor  Jurgenshon,  of  St.  Matthai, 
translated  Schokke’s  Brandy  Plague  into  Lettish  with 
such  extraordinary  effect  that  in  the  two  parishes  of 
Schwaneburg  and  Marienburg  14,000  persons  became 
abstainers.  Results  then  came  rapidly  for  a time.  In 
1838  certain  peasants  of  Lower  Bartofsky,  in  the  prov- 
ince of  Courland,  printed  an  appeal  for  sobriety  in 
the  Lettish  Gazette,  which,  on  April  15,  was  copied 
into  the  Northern  Bee,  of  Petrograd.  At  the  same 
time,  96  of  these  men  went  to  their  pastor  and  induced 
him  to  form  a temperance  society.  In  a short  time 
the  original  96  grew  to  179.  During  the  same  year 
other,  societies  were  established  at  Frederickstadt  and 
at  Jacobstadt,  with  more  than  100  members  each. 

*Burns,  Temperance  History,  Vol.  I.,  p.  120. 


lOI 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


In  1838,  Baird’s  reform  also  swept  over  Livonia, 
and  with  such  remarkable  effect  that  the  profits  from 
the  sale  of  liquors  were  materially  reduced.  To  pre- 
vent this,  the  German  landlords  addressed  complaints 
to  the  Russian  government.  On  July  21,  1838,  the 
Russian  government  issued  a mandate  to  the  Con- 
sistories of  Livonia  directing  that  “they  should  in- 
form the  parish  pastors  that  the  government  disap- 
proved of  their  efforts.”  This,  under  the  Slavic  mystic 
way  of  putting  things,  amounted  to  an  order  to  sup- 
press the  reform,  and  it  was  suppressed.  Conforming 
to  the  government  mandate,  the  provincial  govern- 
ment of  Livonia,  on  July  23,  1838,  put  forth  a similar 
decree  and,  on  July  29,  the  Consistory  of  Riga  issued 
orders  to  the  clergy  in  conformity  with  these  decrees. 
The  reform  begun  by  the  clergy  under  inspiration  of 
Robert  Baird  for  the  uplift  of  the  people,  was  sup- 
pressed at  the  behest  of  the  German  barons,  who  did 
not  want  their  liquor  profits  reduced.  The  agitation 
was  a lively  one  while  it  lasted.  A considerable  num- 
ber of  tracts  were  published,  one  of  which  reached  a 
circulation  of  60,000  copies.  The  reform  moved  so 
swiftly  that  public  almshouses  were  not  allowed  any 
spirits  and  the  inmates  thereof  were  not  permitted 
in  the  drinking  shops.* 

In  1865  the  clergy  of  Lithuania  or  Livonia  again 
began  agitating  the  temperance  question,  with  large 
initial  success,  but  with  the  same  result.  As  soon  as 
the  success  of  the  movement  became  apparent,  Gen- 
eral Mouraviev  strictly  forbade  the  clergy  to  discuss 
the  temperance  question  in  their  pulpits  on  the  ground 
that  the  government  depended  largely  on  the  liquor 
revenues,  and  that  these  revenues  w'ould  be  dimin- 

*Burns,  Vol.  L,  p.  152. 

102 


THE  BALTIC  PROVINCES 


ished  if  the  people  ceased  using  liquor.  The  liquor 
business  was  then  a government  monopoly,  the  old 
“farming”  system  having  recently  been  abolished.  At 
this  time,  throughout  the  Empire,  42  per  cent  of  the 
government  revenues  was  derived  from  the  traffic.* 
The  government,  accordingly,  suppressed  the  temper- 
ance agitation  among  the  Letts  just  as  they  had  done 
before  in  1838  and  1842. 

On  my  visit  to  this  section  in  1913,  I had  several 
days  rich  with  experience  among  these  people.  I had 
eight  or  nine  hours  in  Libau,  where  I landed  in  com- 
pany with  some  eight  hundred  others,  and,  as  most  of 
the  trains  left  at  night,  the  government  railway  sta- 
tion was  thronged  with  people  waiting  and  meeting 
their  friends.  The  waiting  room  was  merely  a gigan- 
tic barroom,  where  the  hundreds  tarried  hour  after 
hour,  drinking  vodka  and  beer  alternately  until  they 
fell  asleep  and,  in  drunken  stupor,  were  dragged  out 
by  the  guards,  policemen  or  soldiers.  They  were 
dragged  across  the  floor  just  as  a dead  dog  would  be 
handled.  There  were  eight  hours  of  this  sort  of  thing. 
Where  the  victims  of  government  vodka  were  taken 
to,  I do  not  know.  But  they  were  dragged  out  by 
government  agents  for  punishment  after  other  govern- 
ment agents  had  gotten  them  beastly  drunk  in  a place 
provided  by  the  government  for  that  purpose. 

The  next  morning,  Sunday,  after  an  all  night’s 
ride,  I landed  in  Riga.  Here,  again,  the  waiting  room 
of  the  government  railway  was  but  a great  barroom. 
Just  outside  was  a magnificent  government  shrine 
where  supplication  is  made  for  the  souls  of  the  dead, 
so  many  of  whom  are  the  victims  of  government 
vodka.  The  government  barroom  was  open  and  do- 
ing big  business — the  government  shrine  was  closed. 

*Burns,  Vol.  II.,  p.  63. 


103 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


I found  this  condition  obtaining  throughout  Russia. 
In  the  large  waiting  rooms  of  the  railway  stations 
there  was  generally  a large  bar  at  one  end  and  a 
shrine  with  a picture  of  Christ  at  the  other.  The 
traveler  takes  his  drink  seated  at  the  table  and  then 
makes  the  sign  of  the  cross  to  the  ikon  as  he  rises 
from  his  seat. 

The  bibulous  center  of  Riga  is  the  “House  of  the 
Black  Heads,”  a social  guild  of  young  men  who  took 
that  name  to  distinguish  themselves  from  their  gray- 
haired seniors.  They  built  their  “House”  originally 
in  1330,  and  it  still  stands  with  the  front  adorned  with 
allegorical  figures  and  arms  of  cities  which  belonged 
to  the  Hansa  order.  In  the  past  the  organization  left 
its  impress  upon  the  commercial  and  political  life  of 
its  time,  but  now  the  chief  duty  of  a member  is  to 
give,  in  its  hall,  a 1,000  rouble  drinking  bout  shortly 
after  his  initiation.  A great  wine  house,  forming  a 
part  of  the  same  structure,  affords  a convenient  source 
of  supply. 

In  the  lower  social  strata,  miserj"  and  filth  are  to  be 
found  everywhere.  The  centers  thereof  are  in  the 
cafes  which  are  so  much  extolled  by  certain  American 
philosophers  and  writers.  The  cafes  and  traktirs  are 
astonishingly  numerous  where  the  vodka  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  beer  of  the  German  overlord  is  sold. 
They  do  close  on  Sundays  until  after  the  divine  ser- 
vice. The  balance  of  the  Sabbath  is  given  over  to  un- 
restrained drunkenness  and  disorder. 

In  a two  hours’  walk  through  sections  where  the 
cafes  were  most  numerous,  I saw  more  drunkenness 
than  I had  seen  in  America  during  the  previous  six 
months.  Drunken  men  slobbering  over  drunken  wom- 
en in  the  cafes ; drunken  boys  and  girls  reeling 
through  the  alleys,  drunken  isvoschicks  lashing  their 

104 


HOUSE  OF  THE  “BLACK  HEADS,”  RIGA 


THE  BALTIC  PROVINCES 


horses  through  the  streets,  drunken  sailors  on  the 
water  front;  drunken  people  were  everywhere. 

Through  some  social  workers  I learned  that  there 
were  18,000  women,  outcasts  from  society,  making  a 
vicious  living  out  of  the  lusts  of  the  city  and  that  the 
liquor  cafes  are  the  centers  of  their  trade.  What  an 
appalling  tragedy  of  human  life ! Here  are  wretched, 
exhausted  women  who  can  now  only  ply  their  trade 
by  ushering  young  girls  in  the  way  of  vice.  Women 
sweeping  the  streets  and  driving  heavy  dray  wagons, 
for  they  must  live.  There  are  beautiful  parks  on  every 
hand  where  these  miserable  victims  of  a false  social 
system  may  breathe  and  starve.  The  bell  of  a mag- 
nificent cathedral  calls  them  to  vespers,  where  they 
carry  their  diseased  bodies,  clad  in  filth  and  rags,  and 
knock  their  heads  on  marble  floors  while  they  call  on 
God  for  mercy.  Oh,  the  pity  and  the  irony  of  it ! 

On  January  21,  1891,  a temperance  evangelistic 
movement,  under  the  name,  “White  Cross,”  was  in- 
stituted at  Riga  through  the  initiative  of  the  Christian 
fellowship  of  the  Lutheran  church.  It  was  conducted 
somewhat  along  the  lines  of  the  Gospel  pledge  sign- 
ing campaigns  of  America,  but  included  in  its  pro- 
gram the  combating  of  vice.  It  was  on  a strictly 
evangelistic  basis.  During  the  same  year  the  Lettish 
Abstinence  Union  Auseklis,  of  Riga,  was  founded 
(May  17).  The  Auseklis  maintains  a temperance  res- 
taurant, the  profits  of  which  are  used  to  provide  tem- 
perance literature.  The  usefulness  of  this  concern 
still  continues.  Its  president  is  A.  Deglau,  Rumpen- 
hofschestrasse  25.  The  “White  Cross”  was  reorganiz- 
ed May  10,  1908.  Total  abstinence  is  a requisite  for 
membership.  This  work  is  conducted  in  two  di- 
visions. The  German  section  is  led  by  Das  Gemein- 
schaftsblatt,  while  the  Lettish  section  is  led  by  Wahrti 

105 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


Unternehmungen.  Each  Friday,  dinner  is  served  at 
their  place  of  meeting,  and  Sunday  services  are  con- 
ducted every  Sunday  evening.  Its  president  is  H. 
Loote,  Alexanderstrasse  13.  Another  “White  Cross” 
union,  the  Livlanderischer,  was  established  at  Dor- 
paterstrasse  5,  on  December  21,  1911. 

As  a further  outgrowth  of  this  same  movement, 
the  Anti-Alcohol  Union  Nordlicht  was  founded  in 
Miihlgraben  on  May  15,  1904.^  This  is  still  active  un- 
der the  presidency  of  Y.  Albett.  On  March  22,  1907, 
the  Evangelical  Union  “Uplift”  was  founded  at  Rom- 
anostrasse  22,  Riga.  This  organization  has  branches 
at  Vitebesk,  Diinaburg,  Pernau,  Dorpat,  Moscow  and 
Behnen.  The  president  of  the  movement  is  G.  Rabl. 
It  conducts  a periodical  devoted  to  the  temperance 
reform.  The  Temperance  Evangelist  Union  was  es- 
tablished May  8,  1907,  at  Moskauerstrasse  197,  Riga, 
under  the  management  of  K.  Schilling.  The  move- 
ment, beginning  with  1891,  was  purely  an  evangelical 
one,  conducted  under  the  leadership  of  the  Lutheran 
church.  It  was  a resurrection  of  the  movement  which 
was  founded  by  Robert  Baird  in  the  thirties  and  which 
reached  its  climax  in  1838,  after  which  it  was  sup- 
pressed by  the  Russian  government.  It  was  strictly 
evangelical  in  its  character,  under  the  care  of  the 
Lutheran  church  organization.  For  the  reason  that 
the  movement  was  regarded  as  a branch  of  the  work 
of  an  established  church,  it  received  no  opposition  this 
time  at  the  hands  of  the  government  authorities. 

On  February  29,  1908,  a movement  of  another 
character  was  started  which  did  meet  with  govern- 
ment opposition.  On  that  date,  the  Riga  Union  for 
the  Support  of  Total  Abstinence  was  founded.  This 
was  intended  purely  as  an  educational  movement,  its 
purpose  being  to  provide  scientific  lectures  on  the 

106 


THE  BALTIC  PROVINCES 


alcohol  question  for  the  public  schools.  A consider- 
able amount  of  literature  was  translated  from  the 
German  into  Lettish  and  some  into  Russian.  It 
opened  auspiciously  and  a large  number  of  lectures 
were  given  in  the  schools.  The  leading  spirit  of  the 
movement  was  Andrei  Friedenburg,  a prominent  law- 
yer. The  prosperity  of  the  concern  was  short,  for 
the  government  soon  forbade  the  society  the  use  of 
the  public  school  buildings  for  the  purpose  of  these 
lectures.  Because  the  cost  of  hiring  halls  for  the  pur- 
pose of  popular  lectures  was  prohibitive,  the  work  of 
the  society  was  thereby  well-nigh  annihilated.  It  con- 
tinues a nominal  existence,  however,  on  the  Suwora- 
strasse,  under  the  presidency  of  Mr.  Friedenburg. 

Contemporary  with  this  educational  movement, 
another  concern  was  established,  not  quite  so  direct  in 
its  announced  purposes,  and  which  met  with  a better 
fate.  It  was  organized  on  December  4,  1907,  under 
the  name,  “Association  for  the  Promotion  of  the  Gen- 
eral Welfare,”  a name  sufficiently  general  to  enable 
any  sort  of  propaganda  to  be  conducted  under  its  flag. 
Its  headquarters  at  Kuterstrasse  4 are  open  every 
working  day.  Its  president  is  Pastor  O.  Scharbert. 
Its  declared  purpose  is  to  promote  the  general  welfare 
of  the  people  in  relation  to  hygiene  and  morals.  One 
section  of  this  association  is  the  anti-alcohol  propa- 
ganda under  the  general  superintendency  of  its  presi- 
dent, C.  W.  Schmidt,  a familiar  figure  at  recent  inter- 
national anti-alcohol  gatherings.  This  division  is  again 
split  up  into  “groups.”  The  “group”  of  men  and  wom- 
en teachers  is  led  by  Fraulein  Elizabeth  von  Grevingk, 
while  the  “group”  of  abstaining  workingmen  is  led 
by  its  president,  K.  Nelins.  A membership  fee  of  one 
rouble  is  charged.  This  organization  has  combined 
so  much  general  philanthropic  work  with  its  anti-alco- 

107 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


hoi  propaganda  that  it  has  not  attracted  the  opposition 
of  the  authorities.  The  concern  has  been  planning 
new  departures,  such  as  a permanent  literature  depot, 
a permanent  anti-alcohol  exhibit,  a traveling  exhibit 
and  a house  of  refuge  for  victims  of  drink. 

The  Russian  government  has  had  much  trouble 
with  secret  organizations,  which  have  generally  been 
revolutionary,  and  so  never  has  been  disposed  to  allow 
the  Good  Templar  order  to  secure  a foothold  any- 
where in  its  domain.  Some  years  ago,  an  attempt  was 
made  to  launch  the  order  in  Finland,  but  the  govern- 
ment promptly  suppressed  it.  It  was  through  the 
diplomacy  of  Edward  Wavrinsky,  of  Stockholm,  In- 
ternational Chief  Templar  of  the  order,  that  a be- 
ginning was  made  by  the  organization  of  a local  lodge 
at  Riga  on  February  3,  1911.  A sort  of  a tentative 
consent  was  obtained  from  the  Governor.  Two  lodges 
are  now  in  operation,  each  having  a membership  of 
about  100.  One  operates  under  a German  and  the 
other  under  a Lettish  ritual.  The  Lettish  meetings 
are  held  at  Kiiterstrasse  4,  while  the  Germans  meet  at 
Andreastrasse  3.  It  was  my  privilege  to  attend  a ses- 
sion of  the  German  lodge.  These  meetings  are  at- 
tended with  more  than  the  usual  secrecy  observed  by 
Good  Templar  meetings  in  other  sections  of  the  world, 
there  being  a fear  that  if  too  much  attention  is  attract- 
ed to  their  work  the  Governor  will  suppress  the  en- 
terprise entirely. 

As  a result  of  the  above-mentioned  enterprises, 
two  more  anti-alcohol  movements  have  been  under- 
taken. One  is  the  formation  of  two  societies  among 
the  Lithuanian  or  Litausch  people  of  the  city.  One 
of  these  is  the  Litauscher  Roman  Catholic  Temper- 
ance Union,  founded  September  23,  1909,  and  which 
meets  at  Elizabethstrasse  22,  under  the  presidency  of 

108 


THE  BALTIC  PROVINCES 


Mr.  Skardynski.  The  secretary  is  L.  Kairys,  and  its 
treasurer  is  Y.  Tukschitkalnis.  The  Litausch  or 
Lithuanian  people  are  chiefly  Catholics.  Another 
Litausch  temperance  enterprise,  which  was  an  out- 
growth of  the  Catholic  organization,  is  the  Litauscher 
Anti-Alcohol  Union,  Liedra,  which  was  formed  on 
August  10,  1910,  under  the  presidency  of  P.  Bogdan- 
pwiez,  A.  Sturkas  as  secretary  and  Y.  Weilantas  as 
treasurer.  These  societies  are  prospering. 

Other  temperance  organizations  now  established 
in  Riga  are:  Riga  Temperance  Union  Rihts,  founded 
May  10,  1908;  Temperance  Union  Agris  Rihts,  or- 
ganized March  5,  1910;  Temperance  Union  Welle,  or- 
ganized February  3,  1911;  Temperance  Union  Upsina, 
organized  on  the  same  date ; Temperance  Union 
Warpa,  organized  October  9,  1911,  and  the  Riga  Cath- 
olic Temperance  Union,  founded  on  March  17,  1909. 

As  these  societies  have  progressed  without  any 
political  entanglements,  the  confidence  of  the  govern- 
ment in  them  has  increased  and  the  former  hostility 
to  them  is  gradually  being  placated.  The  organiza- 
tions have  wisely  refrained  from  any  other  propaganda 
than  that  of  the  social  and  moral  uplift  of  the  people, 
so  that  now  the  suspicions  of  the  authorities  as  to 
their  intentions  are  well-nigh  obliterated.  The  tem- 
perance reform  is  accordingly  more  firmly  established 
in  the  Baltic  provinces  than  in  any  other  section  of 
Russia.  The  movement  in  this  section  is  especially 
hopeful  for  the  reason  that  it  arises  almost  entirely 
from  among  the  people  rather  than  being  handed 
down  from  above,  as  is  the  case  largely  in  Petrograd 
and  Moscow. 

Another  curious  feature  of  the  case  is  that  the 
movement  in  the  Baltic  provinces  is  largely  of  Ger- 
man origin  and  a reflection  of  the  temperance  reform 

109 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


that  has  been  sweeping  over  Germany  during  the  past 
fifteen  years.  Nearly  all  of  the  literature  used  is  of 
German  origin.  It  is  either  printed  in  the  original 
German  or  translated  into  Lettish,  Litausch  and  Rus- 
sian. So  far  the  modern  reform  has  not  penetrated 
far  among  the  Esthonians.  There  is  yet  some  racial 
feeling  of  hostility  between  the  Esthonians  and  the 
Letts,  which  may  account  for  it  in  part.  The  hostility 
of  the  Letts  toward  the  Germans  mentioned  in  this 
chapter  is  not  directed  against  the  German  people,  but 
against  the  German  barons  or  landholders.  There  is 
adequate  ground  for  this  feeling,  and  it  is  hereditary. 
It  is  among  the  curious  freaks  of  history  that  relief 
from  the  oppression  of  alcohol  comes  from  the  Teu- 
tons, the  very  people  that  held  the  Lettish  people  in 
serfdom  for  six  centuries. 


no 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY. 


IT  is  quite  natural  for  an  au- 
tocracy to  assume  control  of 
anything  which  concerns 
either  the  common  interest  or 
the  government.  It  is  perhaps 
more  natural  for  an  autocracy  to 
do  this  than  for  a democracy,  where 
the  power  is  widely  diffused  and 
where  there  are  so  many  different 
interests  to  be  placated  and  dealt 
^ with.  So  the  Russian  government, 
with  no  constitution  to  interfere, 
has  never  hesitated  to  take  over 
any  industry  for  the  time  being  or 
permanently  that  seemed  neces- 
sary. It  being  the  source  of  power,  there  was  no 
appeal.  From  time  to  time,  the  Russian  government 
has  tried,  in  various  ways,  to  lessen  the  evils  that 
have  grown  out  of  the  drink  practices  of  the  people. 
In  principle,  the  personal  habits  of  the  citizens  are 
of  no  concern  to  the  government  unless  they  should 
be  of  such  a character  as  to  undermine  the  efficiency 
of  the  people  from  a public  standpoint.  A drunken 
people  cannot  well  produce  taxes ; they  are  inefficient 
as  soldiers  and  a source  of  trouble  in  times  of  public 
disturbance.  These  reasons,  combined  with  a natural 
feeling  of  sympathy  for  the  victims  of  drink,  have  led 
the  government  of  the  Tsar  at  various  times  to  in- 
terfere. 


Ill 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


The  measures  adopted  for  the  most  part  alter- 
nated between  a system  of  government  control  of  some 
sort  on  the  one  hand  and,  on  the  other,  a bald  system 
of  farming  out  to  the  highest  bidder  the  privileges  of 
debauching  the  people.  In  either  case,  the  govern- 
ment harnesses  the  traffic  to  a system  for  extracting 
revenue  and  plenty  of  it.  Drink  profits  came  easy. 
There  was  no  grumbling.  The  traffickers  were  glad 
to  pay  for  the  privilege.  About  all  the  government 
had  to  do  was  to  take  the  money  and  watch  out  that 
it  got  its  share. 

In  1650,  during  the  reign  of  Alexis  (1645-76),  the 
first  known  attempt  was  made  to  lessen  the  evils  of 
the  drink  practices  of  the  people.  Alexis  was  the 
second  Tsar  of  the  Romanov  dynasty.  By  this  time 
the  central  power  had  become  well  solidified.  Indus- 
try and  art  were  making  much  progress.  The  ec- 
clesiastical reforms  of  Nikon  were  promulgated,  the 
famous  Russian  ballet  was  introduced  and  the  theatre 
had  its  first  important  start.  The  alcohol  reforms  of 
Alexis  were  along  the  natural  lines  of  government 
regulation,  and  several  attempts  were  made  with  more 
or  less  success  by  him  and  his  successors.  Each  of 
these  various  schemes  of  regulation  embodied  a sys- 
tem of  “farming”  the  retail  sale  of  liquors  out  to  the 
highest  bidder.  Beginning  with  1705,  this  plan  soon 
became  fairly  well  established.  The  revenue  there- 
from rapidly  increased.  In  1750,  it  amounted  to 
2,500,000  roubles;  in  1779  to  seven  millions,  and  in 
1811  to  over  thirty  millions.*  In  1767,  a farming 
system  was  elaborated  by  Catherine  II.  in  which  the 
element  of  government  regulation  became  somewhat 
more  prominent. 

*Sovremennaya  Illustratzia,  Petrograd,  Jan.  29.  1915. 


II2 


ARC  OF  FOUNTAINS 

IMPERIAL  PALACE,  PETERHOF,  RUSSIA 


LEO  TOLSTOI 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


Under  this  system  of  government  supervision,  the 
highest  bidder  was  allowed  the  privilege  of  selling 
alcohol  in  a certain  locality.  Government  regulations 
determined  the  prices  to  be  charged  and  the  number 
of  places  of  sale  to  be  opened  in  each  district.  In  re- 
turn for  the  money  paid,  the  successful  bidder  was 
commissioned  to  spread  drunkenness  as  widely  as  he 
wished  or  could  and  without  much  restraint  as  to 
methods  used.  Eventually  this  business  fell  largely 
into  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  especially  in  the  western 
and  southern  provinces.  And  in  this  very  thing,  the 
Jews  sowed  the  seeds  of  bitterness  from  which  they 
reaped  an  abundant  harvest  of  trouble  in  later  years. 
The  thrifty  “farmers”  were  not  over  scrupulous.  The 
mujik  who  got  drunk  found  his  pockets  emptied.  The 
drunken  villager  was  unable  to  pay  his  share  of  the 
taxes  levied  upon  the  mir,  and  his  thrifty  neighbors 
were  thus  compelled  to  make  up  the  deficit.  Selling 
on  credit  and  the  collection  of  the  drink  debts  by  im- 
prisoning the  debtor  was  only  one  of  the  numerous 
and  flagrant  abuses  connected  with  the  “farming” 
system  of  selling  the  drink.  In  the  Jewish  districts, 
the  liquor  shops  where  the  people  were  debauched, 
maltreated  and  robbed  were  mostly  in  the  hands  of 
the  Jews,  and  these  oppressions  came  to  be  charged 
to  the  account  of  the  Jews.  In  1913,  while  out  at 
sea  for  nearly  two  weeks  with  a party  of  about  sixty 
Russian  “intellectuals”  — doctors,  lawyers,  school 
teachers  and  others,  I made  extensive  inquiry  among 
them  as  to  the  reasons  for  the  hostility  of  the  people 
to  the  Jev/s.  As  they  were  all  social  democrats,  they 
could  not  be  charged  with  prejudice  in  favor  of  the 
government.  They  all  insisted  that  they  had  no 
prejudice  against  the  Jews,  that  the  government  was 
not  hostile  to  the  Jews,  and  unanimously  declared  that 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


religion  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  trouble. 
They  all  agreed  that  the  Jew  was  a better  tradesman 
than  the  mujik;  that  the  mujik  always  got  the  worst 
of  it  in  a deal  with  the  Hebrew ; that  the  Hebrew 
almost  invariably  lived  by  trade  rather  than  by  pro- 
ductive industry;  that  the  tendency  of  the  mujik  was 
to  despise  anybody  who  did  not  work ; that  he  regard- 
ed the  tradesman  as  his  oppressor,  and  that  thereby  the 
mujik  accumulated  large  stores  of  resentment  which 
occasionally  broke  loose  in  a frightful  pogrom  in 
which  Slavic  brutality  was  inflicted  upon  the  hapless 
Jews  without  stint.  In  this,  a pogrom  and  its  causes 
bear  some  resemblance  to  similar  phenomena  in  the 
mining  camps  of  Colorado  and  West  Virginia.  At 
night  over  the  stove  in  the  peasants’  izha,  the  children 
hear  of  the  abuses  heaped  upon  their  fathers,  their 
grandfathers  and  their  great-grandfathers  by  the 
Jewish  “farmers,”  and  they  remember.  These  stor- 
ies do  not  lose  anything  in  the  telling,  and  thus  the 
seeds  are  there  planted  for  further  trouble.  The  Jew- 
ish “farmers”  little  dreamed  of  the  misfortunes  that 
were  to  be  visited  upon  their  sons  and  their  sons’  sons 
through  this  traffic  in  vodka.  Under  the  plan  of 
Catherine,  this  situation  became  so  acute  that  in 
1856  the  Jews  of  Russia,  while  being  permitted  to  re- 
side in  villages  and  hamlets,  were  forbidden  to  live  in 
any  house  where  wine,  beer  or  spirits  were  sold,  or 
to  meddle  with  that  trade,  or  possess  any  distillery  or 
dispose  of  any  liquor  in  any  way.* 

The  flagrant  abuses  developed  under  the  “farm- 
ing” system  of  Catherine  led  half  a century  later  to 
a reversal  of  that  policy.  In  1819,  Alexander  I.  issued 
a manifesto  abolishing  the  farming  system  and  insti- 


*Burns,  Vol  I.,  p.  402. 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


tuting  therefor  a government  monopoly  along  the 
lines  of  one  recently  abolished  by  Nicholas  II.  Under 
Alexander’s  manifesto,  the  government  took  over  the 
entire  monopoly  of  the  -wholesale  traffic,  leaving  the 
retail  trade  in  private  hands.  The  price  was  fixed  at 
seven  roubles  per  vedro.  The  -whole  affair  was  bad- 
ly managed  and  the  financial  returns  miscalculated 
by  Count  Gouriev,  the  Minister  of  Finance.  The  gov- 
ernment revenues  falling  off,  the  price  of  vodka  -was 
raised  to  eight  roubles  per  vedro.  The  “farmers” 
fought  the  system.  Illicit  distilling  and  illicit  selling 
resulted,  and  all  sorts  of  violations  of  the  law  were  in- 
creased in  order  to  compel  the  government  to  return 
to  the  old  system.  Alexander  was  a benevolent 
despot,  but  not  a strong  one.  True,  the  invasion  of 
Napoleon  was  thwarted  during  his  rule,  but  the  defeat 
of  the  French  was  accomplished  by  the  rigors  of  the 
Russian  winter  rather  than  by  the  prowess  of  Russian 
arms.  Alexander  tried  to  accomplish  the  emancipation 
of  serfdom,  but  he  was  not  strong  enough  to  carry  it 
through.  He  wanted  to  promulgate  a constitution 
and  even  drafted,  one,  the  “Imperial  Charter  for  the 
Russian  Empire,”  but  both  the  document  and  the  pro- 
posal were  suppressed.  Because  of  the  lack  of  ad- 
ministrative ability  the  government  became  discour- 
aged at  the  want  of  results  from  the  vodka  monopoly, 
and  accordingly^  in  1827,  the  scheme  was  abandoned 
and  the  old  farming  system  was  re-established. 

There  then  followed  35  years  of  the  old  time 
abuses  of  the  “farming”  system.  True,  some  regula- 
tions were  promulgated  for  holding  the  retailers  in 
check  and  designed  to  minimize  the  recognized  evils 
of  the  system,  but  the  farmers,  emboldened  by  their 
success  in  frustrating  the  governmental  monopoly 
plan,  generally  ignored  the  regulations  and  trespassed 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


upon  them  whenever  possible.  In  i86i,  Alexander 
II.  entered  upon  his  famous  series  of  reforms,  one  of 
them  being  the  emancipation  of  the  serfs  described  in 
Chapter  IV.  Another  of  these  reforms  affected  the  sale 
of  spirits.  It  abolished  entirely  the  farming  system 
and,  instead  of  it,  provided  that  an  excise  tax  should  be 
levied  upon  all  spirits  at  the  distilleries,  according  to 
the  size  of  the  plant  and  the  annual  output;  and  that 
all  distilleries  as  well  as  the  places  for  the  sale  of 
spirits  should  be  licensed  by  the  government. 

The  new  system  went  into  effect  on  January  i, 
1863,  and  proved  to  be  no  better  than  the  original  sys- 
tem. It  gave  the  distillers  full  freedom  of  action,  pro- 
vided they  paid  the  excise  tax  and  the  license  dues. 
Otherwise,  the  question  of  drunkenness  was  left 
wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  manufacturers  and  sellers 
of  spirits.  The  number  of  vodka  shops  was  practical- 
ly unlimited,  and  increased  rapidly.  The  government 
taxed  the  alcohol  before  it  left  the  distillery  and  cared 
nothing  as  to  where  it  went  after  that.  As  the  num- 
ber of  vodka  shops  increased,  competition  brought  the 
prices  down,  and  the  consumption  per  capita  went  up 
at  a terrific  rate.  In  1894,  the  last  year  of  the  excise 
system,  the  government  revenue  from  the  liquor  traf- 
fic was  297,000,000  roubles,  with  the  total  population 
of  the  country  at  123,500,000. 

In  the  province  of  Moscow,  every  little  village 
was  said  to  have  two  drink  shops,  which  formerly  was 
not  the  case.  Peasants  took  part  of  their  wages  in 
brandy.  A correspondent  of  the  London  Times*  stated 
that  the  distilleries  increased  from  87,000  in  1862  to 
288,000  in  1864,  according  to  the  government  calcula- 
tions. When  the  “farming”  system  was  resumed  in 

*Quoted  by  Burns,  Vol.  II.,  p.  63. 

I16 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


1 ■ j • 

1827,  it  afforded  revenue  to  the  amount  of  72,000,000 
roubles.  At  the  time  of  the  emancipation  of  the  serfs, 
the  revenue  had  grown  to  130,000,000  roubles,  or 
about  40  per  cent  of  the  total  government  revenue. 

The  profits  derived  by  the  vodka  “farmers”  were 
colossal.  At  the  time  of  the  emancipation  there  were 
216  farmers  in  Russia,  and  their  annual  income  was 
calculated  to  be  about  800,000,000  roubles.  The  farm- 
ers were  the  real  “bosses”  in  the  provinces.  The 
whole  administration,  from  the  governor  down,  re- 
ceived regular  salaries  from  them.  The  Minister  of 
Finance  once  published  the  list  of  expenses  of  one 
such  “farmer.”  It  was  found  that  he  spent  over  17,- 
000  roubles  a year  in  bribing  the  administration.* 
Much  has  been  written  concerning  the  evils  of 
the  “farming”  system  of  dealing  with  the  liquor  traf- 
fic in  Russia,  and  nothing  has  been  said  to  its  advan- 
tage except  that  it  produced  abundant  revenue.  At 
times,  the  government  seemed  to  encourage  excessive 
drinking  in  order  to  increase  the  revenues.  Dr.  Burns 
quotes  Flaxthausen  as  saying,  “In  the  central  pro- 
vinces the  peasants  are  seduced  into  drunkenness, 
while  in  other  provinces  they  are  forced  into  it.”  In 
1880,  in  many  places,  the  fines  of  the  local  courts  were 
commonly  paid  in  vodka,  which  was  usrtally  consum- 
ed on  the  spot  by  the  judges  and  the  parties  to  the 
suit.f  Writing  in  1878,  Sir  Duncan  Mackenzie  Wal- 
lace gives  this  description  of  conditions  prevailing 
generally ; 

“To  appreciate  aright  this  ugly  phenomenon  we  must  dis- 
tinguish two  kinds  of  venality.  On  the  one  hand  there  was  the 
habit  of  exacting  what  are  vulgarly  termed  ‘tips’  for  services 
performed,  and  on  the  other  there  were  the  various  kinds  of 

*Sovremennaya  Illustratcia,  Jan.  29,  1915. 

fBeaulieu;  I’Enipire  des  tsars,  Vol.  II.,  p.  310. 

II7 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


positive  dishonesty.  Though  it  might  not  be  always  easy  to  draw 
a clear  line  between  the  two  categories,  the  distinction  was 
fully  recognized  in  the  moral  consciousness  of  the  time,  and 
many  an  official  who  received  regularly  bezgreshniye  dokhodi 
(sinless  revenues),  as  the  tips  were  sometimes  called,  would  have 
been  very  indignant  had  he  been  stigmatized  as  a dishonest  man. 
The  practice  was,  in  fact,  universal,  and  could  be,  to  a certain 
extent,  justified  by  the  smallness  of  the  official  salaries.  In 
some  departments  there  was  a recognized  tariff.  The  ‘brandy 
farmers,’  for  example,  paid  regularly  a fixed  sum  to  every  of- 
ficial, from  the  governor  to  the  policeman,  according  to  his  rank. 
I know  of  one  case  where  an  official,  on  receiving  a larger  sum 
than  was  customary,  conscientiously  handed  back  the  change. 
The  other  and  more  heinous  offenses  were  by  no  means  so  com- 
mon, but  were  still  fearfully  frequent.  Many  high  officials  and 
important  dignitaries  were  known  to  receive  large  revenues,  to 
which  the  term  ‘sinless’  could  not  by  any  means  be  applied, 
and  yet  they  retained  their  position,  and  were  received  in  so- 
ciety with  respectful  deference.  That  undeniable  fact  speaks 
volumes  for  the  moral  atmosphere  of  the  official  world  at  that 
time.”* 

The  same  writer  gives  a further  description  of  the 
corruption  that  the  vodka  traffic  visited  upon  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  mir.  He  writes: 

“Not  unfrequently  a volost  elder  trades  with  the  money  he 
collects  as  dues  or  taxes ; and  sometimes,  when  he  becomes  in- 
solvent, the  peasants  have  to  pay  their  taxes  and  dues  a second 
time.  The  volost  court  is  very  often  accessible  to  the  influence 
of  vodka  and  other  kinds  of  bribery,  so  that  in  many  districts 
it  has  fallen  into  utter  discredit,  and  the  peasants  say  that  any- 
one who  becomes  a judge  ‘takes  a sin  on  his  soul.’  The  village 
assemblies,  too,  have  become  worse  than  they  w^ere  in  the  days 
of  serfage.  At  that  time  the  heads  of  households — who,  it  must 
be  remembered,  have  alone  a voice  in  the  decisions — were  few  in 
number,  laborious,  and  well-to-do,  and  they  kept  the  lazy,  unruly 
members  under  strict  control;  now  that  the  large  families  have 
been  broken  up,  and  almost  every  adult  peasant  is  head  of  a 

*Wallace,  Russia,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  300,  301,  edition  of  1878.  This 
edition  of  Wallace’s  Russia  is  permitted  to  be  sold  in  Russia. 
His  later  edition  is  excluded. 

I18 


THE  VOIjKA  monopoly 


household,  the  Communal  affairs  are  often  decided  by  a noisy  ma- 
jority; and  almost  any  Communal  decision  may  be  obtained  by 
•treating  the  mir" — that  is  to  say,  by  supplying  a certain  amount 
of  vodka.  Often  I have  heard  old  peasants  speak  of  these  things, 
and  finish  their  recital  by  some  such  remark  as  this : ‘There  is 
no  order  now;  the  people  have  been  spoiled;  it  was  better  in  the 
time  of  masters.’  ”* 

Early  in  the  eighties,  the  laws  were  somewhat  im- 
proved by  prohibiting  the  sale  of  liquor  apart  from 
food,  except  in  corked  bottles.  Establishments  that 
were  authorized  to  sell  by  the  bottle  could  have  but 
one  room  and  could  not  have  on  the  premises  any 
open  vessels  containing  vodka.  This  was  intended  to 
eliminate  the  drinking  shop,  but  it  had  little  effect  on 
the  drinking  because  one  could  step  into  a traktirf 
and  get  a dram  with  a bit  of  bread  or  fish. 

About  this  time,  the  conservative  press  began  to 
agitate  for  a return  to  the  monopoly  system  of  selling 
liquor,  because  of  the  multitudes  of  abuses  that  had 
grown  up  under  the  existing  system.  The  idea  ap- 
pealed to  the  government  and,  in  1885,  Alexander  III. 
instructed  his  Minister  of  Finance,  N.  K.  Bunge,  to  draw 
up  a report  on  the  tentative  monopoly  scheme.  Bunge 
recalled  the  troubles  that  had  existed  formerly  with 
the  influential  “farmers”  and  the  lack  of  financial  re- 
turns under  the  monopoly  plan  launched  by  Alexan- 
der I.,  and,  accordingly,  made  a report  to  the  Tsar 
adverse  to  the  proposed  plan.  Two  years  later,  1887, 
Bunge  resigned  and  was  succeeded  by  M.  Vishne- 
gradski,  who  was  more  friendly  to  the  idea,  but  Vishne- 
gradski  delayed  the  matter  from  time  to  time  and 
never  did  launch  the  project.  He  was  succeeded  in 
1893  by  Sergius  Julevich  Witte,  who  had  just  rounded 
out  fame  through  his  successes  in  finance  and  as  Di- 

*Ibid,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  178,  179. 

fA  traktir  is  a cheap  restaurant  where  drinks  are  served. 

II9 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


rector  of  Railways  of  the  Empire.  In  his  report  to  the 
Tsar,  M.  Witte  explained  the  purposes  of  the  propos- 
ed monopoly  as  a “system,  by  means  of  which  the 
Minister  of  Finance  hopes  to  put  an  end  to  the  griev- 
ous influence  of  the  retailers  of  spirits  on  the  moral 
and  economic  condition  of  the  people.”  The  monopoly 
law  was  enacted  along  the  lines  laid  down  by  the 
Minister,  on  June  6,  1894.  It  left  the  distilling  busi- 
ness open  to  private  enterprise,  under  government 
supervision.  The  production,  whether  from  grain  or 
potatoes,  was  to  be  limited.  The  government  under- 
took to  purchase  from  distilleries  in  any  district  where 
the  monopoly  was  in  operation  a quantity  equal  to 
66  per  cent  of  the  total  consumption  of  the  district,  at 
a price  fixed  by  the  Minister  of  Finance.  The  balance 
of  the  amount  needed  was  to  be  either  purchased  at 
auction,  or  manufactured  in  the  government  distiller- 
ies. The  spirits  were  to  be  rectified  at  the  govern- 
ment warehouses,  and  then  bottled  in  quantities  of 
from  one  two-hundredth  to  one-fourth  of  a vedro.  The 
sale  was  to  be  permitted  in  stores  managed  by  gov- 
ernment officials,  or  in  those  of  private  persons,  espe- 
cially licensed  for  the  trade. 

The  system,  was  introduced  at  first  into  the  four 
eastern  provinces  of  Perm,  Oufa,  Orenburg  and  Sa- 
mara. It  was  found  to  be  so  profitable  that  it  was 
extended  from  time  to  time  until,  on  January  i,  1901, 
it  was  extended  to  all  provinces  in  European  Russia 
except  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Finland.  It  was  later  ex- 
tended to  all  the  Empire,  including  Siberia,  except 
Transcaucasia,  Amour,  Kamchatka,  Sakhalin  and  the 
central  Asiatic  possessions. 

As  a fiscal  system,  the  government  spirits  mono- 
poly was  truly  a stroke  of  financial  genius.  In  1909 
the  government  revenue  from  the  liquor  trade  was 


120 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


527,064,262  roubles.  Under  the  excise  system,  with 
a tax  of  four  roubles  and  forty  kopeks  on  each  vedro, 
the  revenue  on  an  equal  quantity  of  spirits  would  have 
been  371,011,366  roubles,  the  increase  under  the  pres- 
ent system  being  173,724,968  roubles.  Formerly  this 
surplus  money  went  into  the  hands  of  the  vodka  sell- 
ers. Under  the  monopoly  it  went  to  fill  the  govern- 
ment treasury,  exhausted  by  the  Russo-Japanese  war. 
The  treasury,  empty  for  four  years  after  the  war,  fill- 
ed up  rapidly.  Thus  it  contained  in  cash,  in  1909, 
1,900,000  roubles;  in  1910,  107,400,000;  in  1911,  333,- 
000,000;  in  1912,  477,000,000. 

The  introduction  of  the  new  system  was  effected 
with  wonderful  and  unhoped  for  celerity  and  thor- 
oughness. The  semi-official  Novoe  Vremia,  comment- 
ing upon  this,  said : 

“It  was  truly  a colossal  reform,  as  far  as  the  capital  requir- 
ed and  the  territory  embraced  were  concerned.  No  one  knows 
whence  came  all  those  hundreds  of  millions  of  roubles,  neces- 
sary for  the  formation  of  the  new  department  and  the  recruit- 
ing of  a whole  army  of  officials,  now  (1911)  numbering  over 
120,000,  a whole  host  of  inspectors,  superintendents,  collectors; 
whence  came  the  millions  needed  for  the  construction  of  enor- 
mous warehouses  for  whisky,  etc.  The  reform  has  been  intro- 
duced methodically  and  insistently,  with  German  rather  than 
Russian  precision.  Never  in  the  history  of  Russia  have  such 
colossal  means  been  applied  to  the  problems  of  either  education 
or  religious  instruction.” 

But  yet  Novoe  Vremia  concludes  this  showing  by 
this  significant  statement,  “As  a result  of  this,  drunk- 
enness has  rapidly  gone  up  and  not  down.” 

In  the  official  “Estimate  of  Government  Revenues 
and  Disbursements  for  1913”  the  Russian  Minister  of 
Finance  gives  some  interesting  figures  as  to  the  im- 
portance of  the  spirits  monopoly  as  a source  of  reve- 
nue. In  the  table  below,  the  profits  from  the  spirits 


121 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


monopoly  and  the  state  railroads  are  taken  at  net 
figures.  The  total  receipts  from  the  former  are  esti- 
mated at  800,000,000  roubles,  and  the  latter  at  783,- 
000,000  roubles. 


GOVERNMENT  REVENUES  IN  ROUBLES 

Spirits  monopoly  594,000,000 

Custom  House  duties 334,000,000 

Direct  taxes  250,000,000 

Tariff  218,000,000 

Government  property  and  capital..  206,000,000 

Indirect  taxes  195,000,000 

State  railroads  186,000,000 

Internal  tax  on  sugar 128,000,000 

Postal  and  telegraph  service 117,000,000 

Other  revenues  138,000,000 


PER  CENT  OF 
THE  TOTAL 

25 

16 

10 

9 

9 

8 

7 

5 

5 

6 


Total  2,366,000,000  100 

Thus,  25  per  cent  of  the  whole  income  of  the  gov- 
ernment for  1913  was  officially  estimated  to  come  from 
its  control  of  the  spirits  monopoly.  The  total  receipts 
from  the  whole  transaction  were  estimated  for  the 
current  year  at  800,000,000  roubles ; its  expenses  were 
estimated  at  206,028,000  roubles.  This  leaves  the  gov- 
ernment, which  is,  naturally,  exempt  from  the  excise 
tax,  an  estimated  net  profit  of  593,962,000  roubles,  or 
almost  300  per  cent. 

While  the  annual  revenues  of  the  Russian  govern- 
ment from  the  vodka  monopoly  reached  nearly  a bil- 
lion roubles  toward  the  last,  it  must  not  be  taken  that 
that  enormous  amount  represented  the  actual  net  in- 
come of  the  government  from  that  source.  Out  of 
this  must  come  the  heavy  expenses  of  administra- 
tion. An  indication  of  what  these  expenses  amount 
to  may  be  gleaned  from  the  following  tabulation  of 
the  expenses  for  the  three  years,  1911,  1912  and  1913. 
The  expense  for  the  last  two  years  are  official  esti- 


122 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


mates  and  not,  therefore,  probably  exact.  Russian  sta- 
tisticians are  rather  slow  about  their  work  and  the 
actual  figures  are  not  promptly  to  be  obtained : 


EXPENSES  OF  ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE 
VODKA  MONOPOLY 

IN  ROUBLES 

ITEMS  OF  EXPENSE  ipil 

Expenses  of  the  Excise  Dept.  1,958,000 

Buildings  2,946,000 

Maintenance  of  places  of 

manufacture  and  sale 31, 793, 000 

Taxes  1,532,000 

Preparation  and  transporta- 
tion of  alcohol  and  wine, 
and  expense  for  bottles. ..  117,365,000 
Subsidy  to  temperance  Comm.  2,500,000 
Bonus  to  promoters  of  spir- 
its industry  22,085,000 

Refund  to  rural  and  Cossack 
communities  for  loss  of  al- 
cohol trade  7,624,000 


1912 

1.958.000 

3.190.000 

32,508,000 

1.535.000 


127,582,000 

2,500,000 


RUSSIAN 


1913 

1.960.000 

3.921.000 

33,390,000 

1.640.000 


132,684,000 

3,000,000 


18,565,000  21,809,000 


7,624,000  7,624,000 

Total  187,803,000  195,462,000  206,028,000 


While  the  sales  of  vodka  have  fluctuated  some- 
what in  recent  years,  the  profits  of  the  monopoly  have 
steadily  and  rapidly  increased.  This  is  explained 
partly  by  the  fact  that  the  price  of  vodka  is  being 
gradually  increased.  This  increase,  however,  has  not 
been  noticeable  enough  to  affect  the  sales.  Before 
1900  the  price  of  vodka  was  7 roubles  per  vedro. 
After  the  boxer  uprising,  it  was  raised  to  7 roubles, 
60  kopeks.  During  the  Russo-Japanese  war  the  price 
went  up  to  8 roubles ; finally,  in  1908,  the  price  made 
its  last  jump  to  8 roubles,  40  kopeks,  and  it  still  re- 
mained at  this  figure  when  the  monopoly  was  abolish- 
ed. As  the  foregoing  table  shows,  this  did  not  dimin- 
ish the  consumption.  It  did,  however,  increase  the 
profits.  Economy  in  expenditures  is  another  factor  in 

123 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


the  increase  of  profits.  Thus,  in  1909,  the  net  profit 
on  one  vedro  of  vodka  was  6 roubles,  25  kopeks ; in 
1910,  it  was  6 roubles,  42  kopeks;  and  in  1911,  6 
roubles,  52  kopeks. 

The  gross  revenue  from  the  vodka  monopoly, 
since  the  year  1905,  when  the  institution  was  estab- 
lished throughout  the  empire,  is  as  stated  below.  The 
table  also  includes  liquor  revenue  other  than  those 
from  the  monopoly : 


RUSSIAN  GOVERNMENT  LIQUOR  REVENUE* 


MONOPOLY 

TAX  REVTENUE 

WHERE  MONOPOLY  WAS 

YEAR 

REVENUE 

NOT  INTRODUCED 

1905  

609,365,000 

29,771,000 

1906  

697,504,000 

39,394,000 

1907  

707,142,000 

41,117,000 

1908  

39,054,000 

1909  

40,161,000 

1910  

44,015,000 

I9II  

783,132,000 

47,664,000 

1912  

824,692,000 

48,899,000 

1913  

837,660,000 

50,777.000 

1914  

935,805,000 

54,660,000 

It  would  be  entirely  incorrect  to  calculate  the 
consumption  of  liquor  in  Russia  either  from  the  in- 
crease in  profits  or  from  the  increase  in  the  gross  reve- 
nues from  the  sale  of  drink.  The  increase  in  the 
prices  charged  for  the  liquor  accounts,  in  part,  for  the 
increased  receipts,  and  this  fact,  together  with  the  in- 
creased efficiency  of  administration,  helps  to  explain 
the  increased  profits.  Again,  it  would  be  highly  im- 
proper to  quote  statistics  of  monopoly  sales  prior  to 
1906  as  indicating  the  consumption  of  liquor  in  the 
Empire  for  the  reason  that  it  was  not  until  then  that 
the  monopoly  extended  its  operations  to  practically 

♦Kennard;  The  Russian  Year  Book  for  1914. 


124 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


the  whole  country,  including  the  populous  sections  of 
Siberia.  Because  sales  since  that  year  were  practi- 
cally all  made  through  the  monopoly,  statistics  of 
sales  from  that  time  may  properly  be  taken  as  to  indi- 
cate the  consumption.  The  following  tabulation  gives 
the  monopoly  sales  for  each  year,  in  vedros,*  since 
and  including  1905 : 

SALES  OF  SPIRITS  UNDER  THE  MONOPOLYf 


EUROPEAN 

YEAR  RUSSIA  SIBERIA  TOTAL 

1906  79,421,000  6,046,000  85,467,000 

1907  80,938,000  5,937,000  86,875,000 

1908  79,629,000  6,375,000  86,004,000 

1909  77,918,000  6,403,000  84,321,000 

1910  83,203,000  6,339,000  89,542,000 

1911  85,462,000  6,188,000  91,650,000 

1912  89,942,000  6,580,000  96,522,000 

1913  91,200,000  6,300,000  97,500,000 

1914  102,000,000  7,000,000  109,000,000 


The  statistics  of  the  monopoly  sales  prior  to  the 
year  1905  are  not  interesting  except  as  showing  the 
growth  of  the  monopoly.  During  this  period,  the  in- 
stitution was  being  gradually  extended  throughout  the 
country.  The  following  are  the  statistics  of  monop- 
oly sales  in  its  early  years : 


SALES  OF  THE  SPIRIT  MONOPOLY 


YEAR 

VEDRO S 

YEAR 

VEDROS 

1895 

2,950,000 

1898 

31,113,000 

1896 

1902 

1897 

1904 

70,312,000 

It  should  be  noted  that  most  of  the  vodka  sold 
by  the  monopoly  is  vodka  of  forty  per  cent  proof 
spirit;  that  is,  forty  per  cent  alcoholic  strength.  To 

*A  vedro  is  equal  to  3.249  American  gallons. 
fKennard;  Russian  Year  Book  for  1914. 


125 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


render  this  consumption  in  gallons,  one  must  multiply 
by  2.7  to  reduce  the  amount  to  Imperial  or  English 
gallons  and  multiply  it  by  3,249  to  reduce  it  to  Amer- 
ican gallons.  The  monopoly  sales  for  1914  would 
therefore  amount  to  294,300,000  Imperial  or  354,141,- 
reach  America  are  in  Imperial  gallons,  and  accordingly 
somewhat  misleading  to  the  American  reader. 

Before  the  introduction  of  the  monopoly,  eighteen 
years  ago,  there  were  2,090  distilleries  in  Russia.  In 
1912,  the  number  had  arisen  to  2,983,  an  increase  of 
43  per  cent.  In  the  same  year,  the  government  own- 
ed and  managed  26,016  retail  establishments  for  the 
sale  of  the  product.  Besides  this,  there  were  524  pri- 
vate refineries  and  branches. 

The  consumption  of  alcohol  per  capita  in  the  dif- 
from  0.25  vedro  in  the  Siber- 
ian provinces  to  0.98  vedro 
in  the  Lake  Governments  of 
Central  Russia.  The  demand 
for  vodka  in  towns  and  cities 
has  been  three  and  a third 
times  greater  than  that  in 
the  country  districts.  As 
the  manufacturing  industries 
grow,  and  larger  and  larger 
numbers  of  rural  population 
are  drawn  to  the  cities,  the 
sale  of  alcoholic  drinks  bids 
fair  to  increase  even  more. 
The  breaking  up  of  the  vil- 
lage communes  facilitates  this 
migration  to  the  cities,  and 
thus,  indirectly,  aids  the  al- 
cohol trade. 

And  yet,  it  is  true  that 


ferent  provinces  varied 


126 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


the  number  of  vodka  stores  decreased.  Thus,  in  1911 
there  were  26,334  stores,  322  less  than  in  1910;  while 
the  figure  for  1910  showed  a decrease  of  412,  as  com- 
pared with  1909.  But  at  the  same  time,  during  1910, 
the  number  of  restaurants,  licensed  to  sell  alcoholic 
drinks,  increased  by  459  over  the  figure  of  the  pre- 
ceding year.  Moreover,  the  number  of  violations  of 
the  monopoly  law  in  1910  was  82,432,  an  increase  over 
1909  of  15,714.  During  the  same  year,  65,211  un- 
licensed places  of  sale  of  alcoholic  drinks  were  open- 
ed, an  increase  over  the  preceding  year  of  over  12,000. 
The  monopoly  was  by  no  means  successful  in  stamp- 
ing out  the  illicit  traffic.  On  the  contrary,  it  appear- 
ed to  actually  stimulate  the  unlicensed  trade.  The 
people  resented  the  government’s  engaging  in  this 
traffic  and  forbidding  the  people  to  do  the  same. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  how  different  seasons  of 
the  year  affect  the  consumption  of  alcoholic  drinks. 
The  following  percentages  are  approximately  averag- 
ed by  months ; 


CONSUMPTION  OF  VODKA  IN  RUSSIA  BY  MONTHS 


January  . . . . 

. . . . 9.44  per  cent 

February  . . . 

. . . 6.19  per  cent 

March  

...  6.54  per  cent 

April  

. . . 7.10  per  cent 

May  

...  8.38  per  cent 

June  

July  7.15  per  cent 

August  7.96  per  cent 

September  9.70  per  cent 

October  10.87  per  cent 

November  9.24  per  cent 

December  10.16  per  cent 


The  minimum  consumption  is  in  the  denial  sea- 
sons, when  Lent  occurs.  It  increases  toward  the 
end  of  the  year,  reaching  the  maximum  in  October 
(or  September),  when  the  crops  of  the  year  are  re- 
alized. The  heavy  consumption  in  December  and 
January  is  due  to  the  fact  that  these  months  espe- 
cially abound  in  holidays.  In  Russia  drinking  is  con- 
sidered an  essential  feature  in  celebrating  a holiday. 


127 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 

As  a French  writer  upon  the  subject  of  temperance 
(Dr.  Marcou)  remarked,  there  are  fifty-two  Sundays 
and  an  incalculable  number  of  holidays  during  the 
year  in  Russia,  and  all  these  are  signalized  by  a lib- 
eral patronage  of  the  monopoly  liquor  shops. 

Dr.  N.  Grigoriev,  editor  of  Viestnik  Tresvosti,  the 
temperance  monthly  of  Petrograd,  compiles  for  me  a 
series’ of  statistics  from  government  sources  in  an  at- 
tempt to  survey  the  per  capita  consumption  of  vodka 
for  the  past  half  century.  They  are  interesting  as 
showing  the  fluctuation  of  the  drink  under  various 
changes  in  economic  conditions.  The  following  table 
shows  the  total  and  per  capita  consumption  of  vodka 
in  Russia  from  the  inauguration  of  the  law  of  Alexan- 
der II.,  which  went  into  effect  on  January  i,  1863, 
down  to  the  formation  of  the  monopoly ; 


CONSUMPTION  OF  VODKA  IN  RUSSIA  IN  VEDROS 


VEDROS 

\"EDROS 

PER 

PER 

YEAR 

VEDROS 

CAPITA 

YEAR 

VEDROS 

CAPITA 

1863... 

. . .90,100,000 

1.23 

1879-  • • 

. . .78,900,000 

.83 

1864 

. . .62,600,000 

.84 

1880 

. . . 76,000,000 

.78 

i86s. . . 

•93 

1881 . . . . 

. . . 74,000,000 

■74 

1866. . . 

.88 

1882 

. . . 73,400,000 

■72 

1867 

. . .70,500,000 

.88 

1883... 

. . . 74,500,000 

■71 

1868... 

. . .71,200,000 

.87 

1884. . . 

.66 

1869. . . 

. . . 74,200,000 

.89 

1885... 

. . . 66,600,000 

.61 

1870 

. . . 72,300,000 

.86 

1886... 

. . .64,000,000 

■ . .58 

1871. . . 

. . .76,300,000 

.89 

1887... 

■58 

1872. . . 

. . . 76,400,000 

.88 

1888... 

. . . 66,800.000 

■58 

1873- •• 

. . . 76,000,000 

.87 

1889. . . 

. . .66,200,000 

■57 

1874... 

. . .71,500,000 

.80 

1890 . . . 

. . .62.700.000 

■S3 

1875- 

.78 

1891 . . . 

. . . 58,400,000 

■49 

1876. . . 

. . .67,300,000 

■74 

1892. . . 

. . . 59,400,000 

■49 

1877.. • 

66,300,000 

.72 

1893- •• 

. . .59,100,000 

■49 

1878... 

73.300,000 

.79 

1894... 

. . ,64,000,000 

•52 

Russian  statistics  are  not  kept  with  the  same  ex- 
actness as  are  those  of  Germany,  Italy,  Scandinavia, 


128 


MILKMAIDS  OF  KIEV 

ONE  OF  THE  STRANGE  THIXC'.S  TO  BE  SEEN  IN  KIEV. 
THE  "HOLY  CITY”  OF  RUSSIA,  IS  THE  MILKMAIDS  BRING- 
ING MILK  INTO  THE  CITY  IN  EARTHEN  JARS,  IN  THE 
MORNING.  KIEV  IS  A CITY  OF  ABOUT  319,000  POPULATION, 
THE  SEAT  OF  A UNIVERSITY.  THERE  IS  LOCATED  ST. 
SOPHIA’S  CATHEDRAL,  IN  WHICH  ARE  THE  BONES  OF 
VLADIMIR  THE  SAINT,  WHO  HAD  NEARLY  A THOUSAND 
WIVES,  AND  REFUSED  TO  BE  CONVERTED  TO  ISLAM  BE- 
CAUSE THE  RELIGION  FORBADE  WINE.  AFTER  THE 
MILKMAIDS  AND  VEGETABLE  MEN  COME  AND  GO  IN  THE 
MORNING,  THERE  APPEAR  ON  THE  STREETS  A MEDLEY  OF 
SHOP  MEN,  OFFICIALS,  STUDENTS,  ECCLESIASTICS  AND 
NOBLEMEN.  THERE  ARE  MANY  LANDED  GENTLEMEN  IN 
THE  REGION  OF  KIEV  WHO  SPEND  MUCH  OF  THEIR  TIME 
IN  PETROGRAD.  THE  PEOPLE  OF  KIEV  INSIST  THAT  IT 
WAS  THERE  AND  NOT  AT  NOVGOROD  WHERE  THE  REAL 
RUSSIAN  NATION  HAD  ITS  BIRTH. 


RUSSIAN  NATIONAL 
TYPE 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


or  Great  Britain,  except  as  to  finances.  Russian  vital 
and  other  statistics  abound  in  discrepancies,  which  are 
always  encountered  when  one  begins  to  probe  them. 
The  statistics  compiled  by  the  different  departments 
and  different  authorities  do  not  always  agree,  but,  for 
the  purpose  of  comparison,  they  can  be  relied  upon 
approximately.  Dr.  Grigoriev’s  computations  of  the 


DIAGRAM  SHOWING  THE  CONSUMPTION  OF  ALCO- 
HOL IN  RUSSIA  PER  CAPITA  DURING  THE  LAST 
25  YEARS,  IN  HUNDREDTHS  OF  VEDRO.* 


129 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


consumption  of  vodka  since  the  establishment  of  the 
monopoly  are  given  herewith : 

CONSUMPTION  OF  VODKA  IN  RUSSIA  UNDER 
THE  MONOPOLY 

PROVINCES  WHERE 


MONOPOLY 

NUMBER 

PER 

WAS 

VODKA 

YEAR 

VEDROS 

CAPITA 

IN  FORCE 

SHOPS 

189s 

■52 

4 

3.940 

1896 

•SI 

13 

16,577 

1897 

62, 800, OCX) 

•SO 

20 

20,158 

1898 

•50 

35 

26,896 

1899 

70,300,000 

•54 

35 

25.441 

1900 

69,600,000 

•52 

43 

28,873 

1901 

65,8oo,o(X) 

■49 

64 

38.423 

1902 

•49 

71 

41.132 

1903 

72,000,000 

•52 

71 

41.458 

1904 

•51 

75 

42,261 

1905 

•53 

75 

42,342 

1906 

86,500,000 

.60 

75 

43.155 

1907 

88,ooo,ocx) 

•59 

75 

45,798 

1908 

87,200,000 

•57 

75 

48,327 

1909 

85,800,000 

•55 

75 

49,473 

1910 

90,000,000 

•56 

75 

49.517 

I9II 

92,600,000 

.56 

75 

49.915 

1912 

96,500,000 

.62 

75 

The  monopoly  system  was  theoretically  accom- 
panied by  temperance  efforts.  Temperance  commit- 
tees were  to  be  formed  to  discourage  drinking  and 
these  committees,  to  some  extent,  were  subsidized  by 
small  appropriations  from  the  vodka  profits.  Where 
any  real  efforts  were  made  to  discourage  drinking, 
there  was  reported  a falling  off  of  drunkenness  after 
the  advent  of  the  monopoly.  These  temperance  com- 
mittees usually  consisted  of  twenty-two  members  for 
each  district.  These  twenty-two  were  more  or  less 
officially  connected  with  the  government,  and  were 
generally  too  busy  to  do  anything  for  temperance.  If 


130 


THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY 


they  did  become  active,  it  was  at  the  risk  of  coming 
into  collision  with  other  monopoly  government  of- 
ficials, whose  welfare  depended  on  the  amount  of  li- 
quor that  they  sold.  Russian  officials  as  well  as  others 
know  the  advantage  of  preserving  friendly  relations 
with  other  government  officers.  To  use  Mr.  Kennan’s 
application  of  a Russian  proverb,  these  committees  were 
like  “the  seven  nurses”  under  whose  care  “the  child 
loses  its  eyes.”  In  some  cases,  the  temperance  com- 
mittee did  really  valuable  work.  This  situation  suffi- 
ciently explains  why  the  consumption  of  liquor  and 
drunkenness  decreased  in  some  localities  while  it  in- 
creased in  so  many  others. 

In  Petrograd,  there  was  a considerable  temper- 
ance activity,  chiefly  by  private  societies  and  individ- 
ual organizations,  however,  rather  than  by  any  agents 
of  the  monopoly.  These  activities  became  quite  ex- 
tensive beginning  with  the  year  1898.  Mr.  Nicholas 
de  Cramer,  member  of  the  Imperial  Council,  and  one 
of  the  principal  temperance  leaders  in  the  Empire, 
compiled  for  me  a tabulation  showing  the  per  capita 
consumption  of  vodka  in  Petrograd  since  the  temper- 
ance activities  got  under  way  in  1898; 


PER  CAPITA  CONSUMPTION  OF  VODKA  IN 
PETROGRAD 


YEAR 

VEDROS 

YEAR 

VEDROS 

1898 

2.25 

1906 

1.85 

1899 

2.21 

1907 

1.80 

1900 

2.12 

1908 

1-70 

1901 

2.03 

1909 

I-S7 

1902 

1-95 

1910 

I-S7 

1903 

I.8s 

I9II 

1-72 

1904 

1-83 

1912 

1-75 

1905 

1 .84 

By  an  examination  of  a preceding  table,  it  is 
shown  that,  while  the  per  capita  consumption  of  vodka 

131 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


throughout  the  Empire  has  fluctuated,  the  tendency 
for  a number  of  years  has  been  upward.  If,  therefore, 
the  record  for  Petrograd  and  certain  other  places  has 
shown  a decrease,  then  the  balance  of  the  country 
must  record  a marked  increase  in  order  to  equalize 
the  statistics.  If  the  per  capita  consumption  decreases 
in  a great  city  like  Petrograd,  how  much  more  must 
the  per  capita  consumption  increase  in  other  sections 
in  order  to  make  the  whole  Empire  show  an  increase? 


132 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


IT  is  one  of  the  ironies  of  fate  that  the  out- 
rageous drinking  practices  of  Russian 
life  are,  and  for  a thousand  years  have 
been,  largely  associated  with  sacred 
things.  The  Russian  calendar  is  strewn  with 
numerous  saints’  days,  feast  days  and  holi- 
days of  a religious  character.  It  is  then  that 
drunkenness  unrestrained  runs  riot.  It  was 
pointed  out  in  the  previous  chapter  that  gov- 
ernment statistics  actually  show  a larger  in- 
crease in  the  consumption  of  vodka  during  those 
months  in  which  religious  holidays  are  most  frequent. 
My  personal  observations  confirm  what  is  recorded 
by  nearly  every  writer  on  Russian  affairs,  that  the 
holidays  of  Russia  are  days  of  widespread  drunken- 
ness. Recorded  accounts  of  outrages,  debaucheries, 
assaults,  fires,  murders  and  frightful  cruelties  visited 
upon  the  innocent  in  connection  with  holiday  de- 
baucheries compete  with  the  narratives  of  the  bloody 
orgies  of  Ivan  the  Terrible  in  their  shocking  effects 
upon  the  human  sensibilities. 

The  drink  traffic  among  the  Slavs  has  always 
centered  around  certain  social  institutions  correspond- 
ing to  the  American  saloon,  the  British  public  house 
and  the  Continental  cafe.  The  kabak  first  appeared 
in  Russia  early  in  the  sixteenth  century.  It  was  a place 
where  drinks  only  were  sold,  a drinking  place  pure 
and  simple.  The  institution  and  also  the  word  itself 
is  of  Tartar  origin.  When  he  returned  to  Moscow 

m 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


from  a siege  in  Kasan,  Ivan  the  Terrible  forbade  the 
sale  of  alcoholic  drinks,  and  permitted  only  his  close 
friends  and  counsellors  to  drink  it.  For  this  close 
circle  of  privileged  persons  he  built  a special  drink- 
ing house,  which  was  called  the  Kabak.  This  drink- 
ing place,  thus  established  by  the  Russian  Tsar,  is 
the  ancestor  of  the  thousands  of  similar  places  that, 
until  recently,  were  scattered  like  a network  all  over 
Russia.  It  is  indeed  fitting  that  the  institution  of  the 
kabak  in  Russia  was  accomplished  by  the  most  blood- 
thirsty monster  in  all  the  history  of  that  people. 
Ivan’s  prohibition  was  of  short  duration.  The  first 
kabak  was  established  in  1552.  A hundred  years  later 
there  were  approximately  one  thousand  kabaks. 

With  the  incoming  of  the  various  schemes  of 
government  regulation,  excise  restrictions  and,  later, 
the  monopoly  systems,  there  came  the  cheap  restau- 
rant where  food  also  was  sold  in  connection  with  the 
drink.  These  took  the  name  traktirs.  The  kabak  does 
not  appear  in  Russia  at  the  present  period.  The 
traktir  became  the  chief  center  of  drunkenness.  The 
chief  intoxicant  is  a distilled  spirit  called  vodka,  made 
from  potatoes  or  grain,  chiefly  rye.  It  is  the  same  as 
the  American  whisky  without  the  coloring  matter. 
In  fact,  it  is  not  quite  as  high  in  alcoholic  strength  as 
the  whisky.  Vodka  is  of  only  40  per  cent  alcoholic 
strength,  while  whisky  is  usually  about  50.  Pevo  is 
nothing  but  lager  beer.  Braga  is  a sort  of  a home- 
made beer  of  low  alcoholic  strength.  Kvass  is  a 
very  weak  fermented  beverage,  usually  made  of  dry 
chorny  khleb,  a black  bread  made  of  the  whole  grain 
of  rye  without  yeast.  Outside  of  the  feast  day  drunk- 
en carousals,  kvass  is  the  beverage  par  excellence  of 
the  Russian  peasant.  The  usual  method  of  making 
it  is  to  put  a pailful  of  water  into  an  earthen  vessel, 

134 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


and  shake  into  this  two  pounds  of  barley  meal,  or 
dried  chorny  khleb,  half  a pound  of  salt,  and  some 
honey,  more  or  less  according  to  the  wealth  of  the 
family.  This  is  first  stirred  and  then  placed  in  the  even- 
ing in  the  oven  with  a moderate  fire.  In  the  morning 
it  is  left  for  a time  to  settle  and  ferment;  the  clear 
liquid  is  then  poured  of¥,  and  it  is  ready  to  drink  in  a 
fev/  days.  Sometimes  the  kvass  is  made  of  the  juice 
of  cranberries,  apples  or  other  fruit,  and  it  then  cor- 
responds to  the  American  cider  or  home-made  wine. 
Drunkenness  arises  chiefly  from  the  vodka,  and,  in  a 
lesser  degree,  from  the  pevo.  The  pevo  is  not  much 
drunk  by  the  lower  classes.  Like  the  American  In- 
dian, the  mujik  wants  something  that  will  “bring  the 
drunk.”  The  village  spirit  shop  is  known  as  the  lavka. 
Outside  of  alcoholics,  tea  is  the  great  national  drink. 
It  is  made  in  a samovar,  which  is  not  a teapot  but  a 
tea  urn,  warmed  from  within  by  hot  charcoal.  The 
tea  is  served  in  a glass,  usually  with  sugar  and  lemon, 
but  without  milk.  The  tea  house  is  much  used  for 
the  illicit  sale  of  liquor.  The  waiter  will  run  to  the 
nearest  government  liquor  shop  and  return  with  a 
teapot  full  of  vodka. 

Tsar  Vasili  Ivanovich  (1505-32),  son  of  Ivan  the 
Great  and  father  of  Ivan  the  Terrible,  gave  permis- 
sion to  some  of  his  courtiers  to  drink  at  any  time  and 
as  much  as  they  chose.  But,  in  order  that  their  habits 
might  not  corrupt  the  people,  the  drinkers  were 
segregated  and  compelled  to  live  apart  in  a special 
suburb  on  the  south  side  of  the  river  at  Moscow. 
These  people  became  known  as  the  nali,  or  the 
“drinkers.” 

The  prohibition  of  Ivan  the  Terrible  {supra)  was 
short  lived.  It  was  but  the  passing  whim  of  a cruel 
tyrant.  Russia  at  this  period  went  through  a long 

135 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


series  of  famines.  Ivan  kept  a large  standing  army 
for  the  defense  of  his  empire  and,  for  the  upkeep 
thereof,  he  resorted  to  all  kinds  of  extortion  upon  his 
subjects,  who  starved  and  cringed  in  holes  and  cran- 
nies to  escape  the  knout,  the  rack,  the  stake  and  the 
wheel  of  torture.  One  of  Ivan’s  schemes  to  produce 
revenue  was  the  establishment  of  these  public  kahaks 
for  the  sale  of  vodka,  where  the  people  were  com- 
pelled to  resort  to  drink  the  fiery  liquor  and  spend 
their  earnings.  For  had  not  St.  Vladimir  already 
written,  “Roiissi  vessele  peetee:  nee  mo  jet  hez  tavo 
byt.”  (Russia’s  joy  is  drink:  she  cannot  exist  with- 
out it.”)  And  was  it  not  Vasili  (Buslaevich),  the 
hero  drunkard,  who  stood  in  blood  up  to  his  knees  on 
the  Volkhof  bridge,  holding  in  check  all  the  mujiks 
of  Novgorod,  and  thus  saved  Russia?  Anthony  Jen- 
kinson,  an  English  adventurer  and  trader  living  in 
Moscow  in  time  of  Ivan  IV.,  wrote: 

“At  my  being  there,  I heard  of  men  and  women  that  drunk 
away  their  children  and  all  their  goods  at  the  Tsar's  tavern,  and 
not  being  able  to  pay,  having  pawned  himself,  the  taverner 
bringeth  him  out  to  the  highway  and  beates  him  upon  the  legs; 
then  they  that  pass  by,  knowing  the  cause  and  preadventure, 
having  compassion  upon  him,  giveth  the  money,  so  he  is  ran- 
somed.’’* 

The  privilege  of  running  the  tavern  was  let  out 
by  the  Tsar  to  some  tenant  or  was  bestowed  upon 
some  courtier  for  a year  or  two  at  a time.  In  case  the 
liquor  dealer  prospered,  he  found  himself  in  trouble. 
Jenkinson  tells  us  that  “then,  he  being  grown  rich,  is 
taken  by  the  Tsar  and  sent  to  the  warres  again,  where 
he  shall  spend  all  that  he  has  gotten  by  ill  means,  so 
that  the  Tsar  in  his  warres  is  little  charged,  but  all 
the  burden  lieth  upon  the  poor  people.”  In  addition 

*Quoted  by  Gerrare,  Story  of  Moscow,  p.  236. 

136 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


to  the  drinking  of  brandy,  Jenkinson  further  tells  us 
that  the  Muscovites  had  “many  sortes  of  meates,  and 
delight  in  eating  gross  meates  and  stinking  fish.” 
Kennard,*  quoting  an  account  of  the  social  customs 
of  the  period  (1551),  states  that  at  the  church  feasts 
men  and  women,  boys  and  girls,  spent  the  night  in 
some  out-of-the-way  spot,  dancing,  singing,  indulging 
in  every  form  of  sensual  excess,  and  “when  dawn 
came,  they  ran  shouting  like  mad  folk  down  to  the 
river,  where  they  all  bathed  together,  and  when  the 
bell  rang  for  matins  they  went  back  to  their  houses, 
and  there  fell  down  like  dead  people  of  sheer  ex- 
haustion.” 

Ivan’s  character  was  a strange  compound  of 
greatness  and  barbarism.  He  cemented  Russia  into 
a nation,  which  had  not  been  accomplished  before. 
Cruel,  dissolute,  superstitious,  he  yielded  to  the  most 
shameful  excesses,  and  then,  covered  with  monkish 
garments,  he  would  lead  a pious  procession.  After  his 
greatest  slaughters,  he  would  pray  for  the  souls  of 
his  victims.  In  the  face  of  his  schemes  for  vodka 
revenue,  he  writes  a scolding  letter  to  the  monks  of 
St.  Cyril,  saying,  “Beyond  the  monastery  there  is  a 
house  filled  with  provisions.  Some  say  that  strong 
drinks  are  beginning  to  be  smuggled  into  the  cell  of 
Scheremetief.  Now,  in  monasteries,  it  is  against  the 
rules  to  have  foreign  wines ; how  much  more,  then, 
strong  liquors  ?”f 

The  times  of  Peter  the  Great  (1682-1725)  was  a 
period  of  great  activity  and  also  a period  of  much 
drunkenness.  Peter  himself  was  a prodigious  drinker. 
He  was  a man  of  much  the  type  of  Prince  Bismarck, 

*Russian  Peasant,  p.  165. 

tQnoted  by  Rambaud,  Vol.  L,  p.  288. 

137 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


drank  heavily  like  Bismarck,  and  deplored  drink,  as 
did  the  great  German.  He  established  what  he  called 
the  “most  drunken  collegium,”  or  the  “most  drunken 
conclave,”  of  which  he  was  the  head  and  in  which  he 
and  his  friends  rendered  due  honors  to  the  god  Bac- 
chus. Means  of  punishment  at  these  feasts  for  some 
infractions  of  the  rules  was  that  the  guilty  man  was 
compelled  to  drain  a huge  goblet  nicknamed  “the 
great  Eagle.”  One  such  goblet  was  sufficient  to  ren- 
der an  ordinary  man  senseless.  According  to  his  own 
words,  Peter  drank  thirty-six  glasses  of  wine  at  the 
celebration  held  in  honor  of  the  capture  of  Revel. 
Peter’s  Chief  Admiral,  Apraksin,  used  to  boast  that 
he  had  drunk,  upon  one  occasion,  one  hundred  and 
eighty  glasses  of  wine  in  three  days.*  Rambaud, 
recognized  as  a very  careful  and  conservative  writer, 
gives  a most  graphic  and  almost  unbelievable  descrip- 
tion of  one  of  these  affairs  of  Peter.  He  writes: 

“The  assemblies  of  Peter  the  Great  were  at  first  only  a 
parody  of  those  of  Versailles.  Bergholtz,  a German  who  came 
in  the  train  of  the  Duke  of  Holstein  in  seventeen  hundred  and 
twenty-one,  complains  that  men  allowed  themselves  to  smoke  in 
the  presence  of  ladies ; that  the  ladies  sat  apart,  embarrassed  in 
their  unwonted  attire,  silently  watching  each  other;  that  the 
nobles  were  often  carried  away  in  a state  of  drunkenness  by 
their  drunken  lackeys.  Did  not  Peter  himself  institute  as  a 
punishment  for  any  breach  of  good  behavior  the  emptying  of 
the  “great  eagle,”  a huge  goblet  filled  with  brandy?  To  amuse 
the  new  society  and  give  life  to  his  capital,  he  instituted  mas- 
querades, cavalcades  of  disguised  lords  and  ladies,  the  feast  of 
fools,  the  Great  Conclave,  presided  over  by  the  “Prince-pope,” 
his  former  tutor,  the  aged  Zotof,  who  was  dressed  in  crimson 
velvet  trimmed  with  ermine.  At  his  feet  sat  a Bacchus  riding 
on  a cask,  with  a rummer  in  one  hand  and  a drinking  vessel  in 
the  other.  He  was  surrounded  by  intoxicated  cardinals,  among 
whom  were  to  be  found  noblemen,  princes,  acting-governors, 
and  sometimes  the  Tsar  himself.  The  procession  would  pass 

*Sovremennaya  Illustratzia  (Petrograd),  Jan.  29,  1915. 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


along  the  street  followed  by  a sledge  harnessed  to  four  huge 
hogs,  driven  by  a gentleman  of  rank.  Then  a court  jester, 
dressed  as  Neptune,  with  crown,  long  white  beard,  and  trident, 
would  come  sitting  in  a sort  of  mussel  shell,  accompanied  by 
two  sirens.  Then  a throng  of  sledges  arranged  with  sails  like 
boats,  and  commanded  by  the  Admiral  or  the  Tsar.  Bergholtz 
describes  the  launching  of  a ship  which  took  place  in  July,  sev- 
enteen hundred  and  twenty-one.  The  Tsar,  the  Prince-pope  and 
all  his  cardinals,  the  senators,  and  a large  number  of  the  first 
men  of  the  empire  were  present.  No  one  was  allowed  to  leave 
the  ship  until  word  was  given.  ‘Almost  all  were  drunk,  and 
yet  they  desired  still  more,  until  their  powers  were  exhausted. 
The  great  Admiral  was  so  full  that  he  wept  like  a child,  which 
is  said  to  be  a habit  of  his  when  he  takes  too  much.  The  Prince, 
Menshikov,  was  so  intoxicated  that  he  fell  dead  drunk,’  and  was 
taken  home  by  his  servants.  ‘The  Prince  of  Moldavia  was 
quarreling  with  the  obert'olitseimeister ; here  a couple  were 
fighting,  there  another  couple  were  drinking,  and  swearing 
everlasting  brotherhood  and  fidelity.’  Peter  forbade  the  use  of 
servile  diminutives  and  prostrations  before  the  Tsar,  and  by 
blows  with  his  cane  he  taught  his  nobility  to  feel  themselves 
free  men  and  Europeans.”* 

Peter  conquered  the  swamps  on  which  he  built 
Petrograd,  and  greatly  enlarged  the  boundaries  of  his 
Empire,  but  he,  in  turn,  was  conquered  by  drink. 
Rambaud  thus  describes  the  end  of  Peter  the  Great: 

“His  health  was  broken  by  his  toils  and  his  excesses,  and  he 
no  longer  took  any  care  of  himself.  On  the  twenty-seventh  of 
October,  seventeen  hundred  and  twenty-four,  he  flung  himself 
into  icy  water  up  to  his  waist  to  save  a boat  in  distress ; he 
began  to  feel  the  first  symptoms  of  illness,  but  he  recovered, 
and  in  January  he  again  instituted  the  election  of  a Prince- 
pope.  Buturlin,  who  had  taken  the  place  of  Zotof  in  this  office, 
had  just  died,  and  a new  Conclave  of  Cardinals  was  assembled. 
Peter,  as  usual,  drank  to  excess.  In  the  ‘benediction  of  the 
waters’  he  caught  a fresh  cold,  and  died  on  the  twenty-eighth  of 
January,  seventeen  hundred  and  twenty-five,  without  being  able 
either  to  speak  or  write  his  last  wishes.  He  was  then  only  fifty- 
three  years  of  age. 

*History  of  Russia,  Vol.  IL,  pp.  84,  85. 

139 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


“He  was,  above  all,  a man  of  war,  marked  as  such  by  his 
tall  figure,  his  robust  limbs,  his  nervous  and  sanguine  tempera- 
ment, and  his  strong  arm,  as  strong  as  a blacksmith’s.  His  life 
was  a struggle  with  the  forces  of  the  past,  with  the  ignorant 
nobles,  with  the  fanatical  clergy,  with  the  people  who  plumed 
themselves  on  their  barbarism  and  nation  isolation,  with  the 
Cossack  and  Strelits,  representative  of  the  old  superstition. 
This  combat,  which  shook  Russia  and  the  world,  he  found  re- 
peated in  his  own  family.  It  began  with  his  sister,  Sophia,  and 
continued  with  his  wife,  Evdokia,  and  his  son,  Alexis.  Entirely 
given  up  to  his  terrible  task,  Peter  all  his  life  disdained  pomp, 
luxury  and  every  kind  of  display.  The  first  Emperor  of  Russia, 
the  founder  of  Petrograd,  forgot  to  build  himself  a palace; 
his  favorite  residence  of  Peterhof  is  like  a villa  of  a well-to-do 
citizen  of  Saandam.  His  table  is  frugal,  and  what  he  sought 
in  his  orgies  of  beer  or  brandy  was  a stimulant  or  a distraction.’’* 

Anna  (1730-40)  showed  some  symptoms  of  re- 
volt at  the  dissolute  excesses  of  the  court  under  Peter 
I.  and  his  successors.  She  would  not  allow  a drunken 
person  in  her  sight.  Prince  Kurakin  alone  had  per- 
mission to  drink  as  much  as  he  wished.  But,  in  order 
not  to  do  away  entirely  with  such  a pretty  custom, 
January  twenty-ninth,  the  anniversary  of  the  Em- 
press’ coronation,  was  devoted  to  Bacchus.  On  this 
day  every  courtier  was  expected  to  kneel  before  the 
Empress  and  drain  a monstrous  glass  filled  with 
Hungarian  wine.f  The  reign  of  Elizabeth  (1741-62) 
was  characterized  by  increased  zeal  for  the  orthodox 
religion.  She  suppressed  the  Armenian  churches  in 
the  two  capitals,  revived  the  laws  of  Peter  I.  against 
people  who  talked  in  church,  confiscated  tobacco 
pouches  found  in  church,  forbade  public  baths  com- 
mon to  men  and  women  in  large  towns  and  repressed 
with  stripes  and  chains  drunkenness  among  priests. 
Personally  she  was  weak  and  of  dissolute  manners. 

*Rambaud;  History  of  Russia,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  124,  125. 

^Memoirs  of  Manstein,  quoted  by  Rambaud,  Vol.  II.,  p.  142. 

140 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


Rambaud  thus  describes  certain  phases  of  her  reign: 

“Legislation  became  less  severe.  Elizabeth  imagined  that 
she  had  abolished  the  penalty  of  death,  but  the  knout  of  her 
executioners  killed  as  well  as  the  axe.  Those  who  survived 
flagellation  were  sent,  with  their  nose  or  ears  cut,  to  the  public 
works.  Torture  was  employed  only  in  the  gravest  cases.  It 
is  estimated  that  during  her  reign  more  than  eighty  thousand 
were  knouted  or  sent  to  Siberia.  But  if  the  civil  code  did  not 
advance,  a code  of  procedure  and  a code  of  criminal  investiga- 
tion were  completed.  The  police  had  hard  work  to  maintain 
even  a show  of  order  in  this  rude  society.  The  government  was 
powerless  to  stop  brigandage  on  the  great  highways,  pirates  still 
captured  ships  on  the  Volga,  and  armed  bands  gave  battle  to  reg- 
ular troops.  Moscow  and  Petrograd  were  like  woods  of  ill- 
fame.  Thieves  had  lost  none  of  their  audacity,  and  one  of 
them,  Vanka  Kain  the  Russian  Cartouche,  is  the  hero  of  a whole 
cycle  of  songs.  Edicts  were  promulgated  to  prevent  the  keeping 
of  bears  in  the  capitals,  and  to  hinder  them  from  being  allowed 
to  roam  at  night  through  the  towns  of  the  provinces.* 

Elizabeth’s  son,  who  ruled  as  Peter  III.  (1762-68), 
was  half-witted  and  a confirmed  drunkard.  He  was  a 
great  admirer  of  Germany  and  ceded  back  to  that 
country  all  that  his  mother  had  won  from  her  in  war. 
At  a great  dinner,  given  in  honor  of  the  conclusion 
of  the  treaty,  he  caused  consternation  by  proposing  a 
toast  to  the  health  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  in  which 
he  declared  in  a half  drunken  manner:  “Let  us  drink 
to  the  health  of  the  King  our  master ; he  has  done  me 
the  honour  to  confide  to  me  one  of  his  regiments.  I 
hope  he  will  not  dismiss  me;  you  may  be  assured  that 
if  he  should  order  it,  I would  make  war  on  hell  with 
all  my  Empire.” 

Russian  society  had  become  sufficiently  civilized 
to  look  upon  the  gross  habits  of  Peter  with  some  dis- 
gust. “The  life  led  by  the  Emperor,”  wrote  the 
French  ambassador,  De  Breteuil,  “is  shameful.  He 

^History  of  Russia,  Vol.  II.,  p.  168. 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


smokes  and  drinks  beer  for  hours  together,  and  only- 
ceases  from  these  amusements  at  five  or  six  in  the 
morning,  -when  he  is  dead  drunk.  . . . He  has  re- 
doubled his  attentions  towards  Mademoiselle  Vor- 
ontsov. One  must  allov/  that  it  is  a strange  taste ; 
she  has  no  wit;  and  as  to  her  face,  it  is  impossible  to 
imagine  anything  uglier ; she  resembles  in  every  way 
a servant  at  a low  inn.”  Peter  ended  his  career  by 
being  killed  in  a palace  row  by  Alexis  Orlov  in  July, 
1762.* 

It  is  idle  to  think  that  such  a condition  among 
the  ruling  class  would  not  be  reflected  in  the  lives  of 
the  people.  Even  the  great  Tourgeniev,  a generation 
ago,  wrote  in  his  Virgin  Soil,  “Everything  sleeps  in 
Russia,  in  village  and  city — officers,  soldiers,  mer- 
chants, judges,  fathers,  children — all  are  asleep.  Only 
the  drink  shop  sleeps  not,  saturating  Holy  Russia  with 
drink.”  Again  he  records,  “and  clasping  in  her  hands 
a bottle  of  strong  vodka,  her  forehead  at  the  Pole,  her 
heels  upon  the  Caucasus,  sleeps,  in  heavy  stupor,  our 
fatherland.  Holy  Russia.”  Ravaged  by  every  imagin- 
able scourge,  by  an  autocratic  rule,  cholera,  famine, 
pogroms,  chronic  famine,  Russia  found  her  only  “joy 
in  drink.”  The  peasant  drank  himself  into  a head- 
ache, and  then  drank  more  liquor  to  cure  the  head- 
ache. Indeed,  the  accepted  remedy  for  a headache 
acquired  in  this  manner  was  more  vodka  with  a piece 
of  pickled  herring.f  Except  on  holidays,  the  peasant 
contented  himself  with  being  merely  tipsy,  but.  on  the 
day  of  some  saint,  he  would  drink  himself  senseless. 
My  first  day  in  Petrograd  was  a saint’s  day,  and  I 

*Baring;  The  Russian  People,  p.  171.  Bilbasov;  History  of 
Catherine  11. , Vol.  11. , p.  127. 

tBaring;  The  Russian  People,  p.  59. 


142 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


personally  witnessed  half  a dozen  mujiks  drop  down 
senseless  on  the  sidewalks. 

The  ignorant  peasant,  in  his  chronic,  hereditary 
superstition,  peoples  the  air  and  woods  with  demons,* 
as  if  he  was  not  already  supplied  sufficiently  with 
troubles.  One  demon,  the  Polevoi,  the  field  demon, 
is  a particular  pest  of  drunkards.  He  takes  the 
form  of  a man  dressed  in  white.  His  body  is  black 
and  his  eyes  are  of  various  colors.  Instead  of  hair 
his  head  is  clothed  in  green  grass.  The  Polevoi 
is  generally  docile,  but  sometimes  becomes  danger- 
ous, creeping  upon  the  sleeping  peasant  lying  drunk 
in  the  fields  to  strangle  him.  If  the  agricultural  tools 
don’t  work,  if  the  soil  is  too  hard  or  if  anything  in 
the  field  goes  wrong,  it  is  the  Polevoi.  “I  have  seen 
an  intoxicated  mujik,  before  lying  down  to  sleep  in 
the  field,  place  a bottle  full  of  vodka  by  his  side,  and, 
with  the  words,  “Vot  dlia  tebya,  Polevoi!”  (“There! 
that’s  for  you,  Polevoi!”) , “sink  to  slumber,”  writes 
Dr.  Kennard.f 

There  are  certain  phases  of  Russian  peasant  life 
that  should  be  described,  but  I am  fearful  to  use  my 
own  words  lest  I may  be  accused  of  permitting  Ameri- 

*Dr.  Kennard,  in  his  Russian  Peasant,  gives  the  following 
list  of  demons,  household  and  otherwise,  and  a sketch  of  the 
characteristics  of  each : 

Household  demon  or  Domovoi. 

Farmyard  demon  or  Domovoi  dvaroff. 

Bath  demon  or  Bannik. 

Barn  demon  or  Ovennik. 

Hole  demon  or  Keekeemona. 

Wood  demon  or  Leshi. 

Field  demon  or  Polevoi. 

Water  Demons,  demon  or  Vodianoi. 

Water  Fairies,  demon  or  Roussalki. 

Incarnations  (substitutes)  Oborotni. 

^Russian  Peasant,  p.  70. 


143 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


can  imagination  to  get  the  better  of  me.  The  truth 
is  so  unnatural,  so  extreme  in  its  character,  so  ab- 
horrent, that,  instead  of  speaking  for  myself,  I will 
call  in  as  witnesses  some  of  the  most  conservative 
writers  on  Russian  affairs.  Not  one  of  them  is  a 
radical,  and  each  work  quoted  circulates  freely 
throughout  Russia.  Let  Maurice  Baring,  editor  of 
the  Russian  Review  and  member  of  the  Liverpool 
School  of  Russian  Studies,  describe  a peasant  wedding 
and  peasant  recruiting  for  the  army : 

“The  Russian  peasant  marries  young.  The  courtship  takes 
place  in  the  spring,  and  the  wedding  in  the  autumn.  The  wed- 
ding is  the  occasion  for  a great  feast,  lasting  generally  three 
days.  The  bridegroom  and  his  friends  walk  about  in  the  village 
playing  accordions  and  drinking  vodka  in  different  houses,  and 
throwing  sugar  to  the  children.  If  possible  he  will  get  horses 
to  drive  him  to  church.  The  night  before  the  wedding  there 
will  probably  be  a dance,  which  will  last  all  night.  Weddings 
are  the  chief  festivals  and  merry-makings  in  the  life  of  the 
Russian  peasant.  Another  cause  of  merrj'-making  is  the  de- 
parture of  recruits.  In  the  autumn  a military  deputation  ar- 
rives at  a village,  and  the  recruits  are  chosen  by  lot.  About 
thirty  per  cent  of  the  male  population  is  taken.  Only  sons  are 
excused,  the  sole  worker  in  a family,  schoolmasters,  and  priests, 
and  there  are  other  exceptions.  The  men  who  are  chosen  spend 
the  time  which  elapses  between  their  enlistment  and  their  de- 
parture in  merry-making.  They  get  drunk  nearly  every  day. 
They  walk  about  the  village  playing  accordions.  They  are  gen- 
erally glad  to  go,  and  their  parents  are  nearly  always  glad  to 
get  rid  of  them.”* 

Sir  Donald  Mackenzie  Wallace,  K.  C.  V.  O.,  one 
of  the  most  thoroughly  informed  writers  on  Russian 
subjects,  thus  describes  a feast  in  honor  of  some  saint: 

“To  celebrate  a parish  fete  in  true  orthodox  fashion  it  is 
necessary  to  prepare  beforehand  a large  quantity  of  braga — a 
kind  of  home-brewed  small  beer — and  to  bake  a plentiful  supply 
of  piroghi  or  pies.  Oil,  too,  has  to  be  procured,  and  vodka  in 

*Baring;  The  Russian  People,  pp.  66,  67. 


144 


COPYRIGHT  BY  UNDERWOOD  a UNDERWOOD 

INTERIOR  OF  A SIBERIAN  (MINUSINSK  TRIBE)  HOME. 
NOTICE  THE  EVER-PRESENT  LIQUOR  BOTTLES 
ON  THE  TOP  SHELF 


RUSSIAN  NATIONAL 
TYPE 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


goodly  quantity.  At  the  same  time  the  big  room  of  the  isba,  as 
the  peasant’s  house  is  called,  has  to  be  cleared,  the  floor  wash- 
ed, and  the  table  and  benches  scrubbed.  The  evening  before  the 
fete,  while  the  piroghi  are  being  baked,  a little  lamp  burns  before 
the  Icon  in  the  corner  of  the  room,  and  perhaps  one  or  two 
guests  from  a distance  arrive  in  order  that  they  may  have  on  the 
morrow  a full  day’s  enjoyment. 

“On  the  morning  of  the  fete  the  proceedings  begin  by  a 
long  service  in  the  church,  at  which  all  the  inhabitants  are  pres- 
ent in  their  best  holiday  costumes,  except  those  matrons  and 
young  women  who  remain  at  home  to  prepare  the  dinner.  About 
mid-day  dinner  is  served  in  each  izba  for  the  family  and  their 
friends.  In  general  the  Russian  peasant’s  fare  is  of  the  simplest 
kind,  and  rarely  comprises  animal  food  of  any  sort — not  from 
any  vegetarian  proclivities,  but  merely  because  beef,  mutton,  and 
pork  are  too  expensive ; but  on  a holiday,  such  as  a parish  fete, 
there  is  always  on  the  dinner-table  a considerable  variety  of 
dishes.  In  the  house  of  a well-to-do  peasant  there  will  be  not 
only  greasy  cabbage-soup  and  kasha — a dish  made  from  buck- 
wheat— but  also  pork,  mutton,  and  perhaps  even  beef.  Braga  will 
be  supplied  in  unlimited  quantities,  and  more  than  once  vodka 
will  be  handed  around.  When  the  repast  is  finished,  all  rise  to- 
gether, and,  turning  towards  the  ikon  in  the  corner,  bow  and 
cross  themselves  repeatedly.  The  guests  then  say  to  their  host, 
‘Spasibo  za  khleb  za  sol’ — that  is  to  say,  ‘Thanks  for  your  hos- 
pitality,’ or  more  literally,  ‘Thanks  for  bread  and  salt;’  and 
the  host  replies,  ‘Do  not  be  displeased,  sit  down  once  more  for 
good  luck’^ — or  perhaps  he  puts  the  last  part  of  his  request  into 
form  of  a rhyming  couplet  to  the  following  effect:  ‘Sit  down, 
that  the  hens  may  brood,  and  that  the  chickens  and  the  bees  may 
multiply !’  All  obey  his  request,  and  there  is  another  round  of 
vodka. 

“After  dinner  some  stroll  about,  chatting  with  their  friends, 
or  go  to  sleep  in  some  shady  nook,  whilst  those  who  wish  to 
make  merry  go  to  the  spot  where  the  young  people  are  singing, 
playing,  and  amusing  themselves  in  various  ways.  As  the  sun 
sinks  towards  the  horizon,  the  more  grave,  staid  guests  wend 
their  way  homewards,  but  many  remain  for  supper;  and  as  even- 
ing advances  the  effects  of  the  vodka  become  more  and  more 
apparent.  Sounds  of  revelry  are  heard  more  frequently  from 
the  houses,  and  a large  proportion  of  the  inhabitants  and  guests 
appear  on  the  road  in  various  degrees  of  intoxication.  Some 
of  those  vow  eternal  affection  to  their  friends,  or  with  flaccid 


145 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


gestures  and  in  incoherent  tones  harangue  invisible  audiences ; 
others  stagger  about  aimlessly  in  besotted  self-contentment, 
till  they  drop  down  in  a state  of  complete  unconsciousness. 
There  they  lie  tranquilly  till  they  are  picked  up  by  their  less  in- 
toxicated friends,  or  more  probably  till  they  awake  of  their 
own  accord  on  the  next  morning.”* 

We  will  let  Dr.  Howard  P.  Kennard,  editor  of 
the  standard  Russian  Year  Book,  described  the  Feast  of 
Masslenitsa  or  “Butter  week”  preceding  the  great  feast 
of  Lent.  He  writes: 

“On  Friday  night  all  go  to  bed  early  to  prepare  for  the  two 
final  and  most  important  days  of  the  feast — Saturday  and  Sun- 
day. On  these  two  days,  feasting,  driving,  dancing,  and  drink- 
ing— especially  the  latter — reach  their  height,  the  amount  of 
vodka  consumed  being  enormous.  The  peasants  dance,  sing,  and 
drink,  and  then  drive  madly  through  the  village,  returning  again 
only  to  quench  their  apparently  inexhaustible  thirst.  Every  izha 
has  its  table  laid  with  vodka  and  provisions,  and  every  one  is 
free  to  enter  and  imbibe  to  the  full,  to  his  heart’s  content. 

“On  Sunday  night  the  orgy  approaches  to  its  extreme  height. 
All  form  circles,  and  dance  and  drink,  drink  and  dance,  till  as 
midnight  approaches  King  Vodka  reigns  supreme.  !Many  are  too 
intoxicated  to  do  anything  but  roll  helplessly  and  idiotically 
about,  em.bracing  all  and  sundry,  the  while  they  shout  ‘Slava 
Bogoo’  (‘God  be  praised’),  and  kiss  one  another  franticalh', 
swearing  eternal  friendships,  finally  endeavoring  to  dance  a 
jig,  and  falling  inert  masses  of  human  flesh,  sans  thought,  sans 
sight,  sans  tout,  into  the  snow,  whence  they  are  dragged  either 
by  comrades  less  drunk,  or  else  by  their  female  relatives,  who, 
as  a general  rule,  do  not  partake  to  such  excess. 

“At  II  :30  the  church  bell  is  tolled  by  the  priest  as  a warning 
to  his  flock  that  the  end  of  the  feast  is  near.  Previous  to  this 
has  the  bell  been  tolled  at  5 p.  m.,  and  I can  vouch  for  it  that 
the  flock  answered  to  the  warning  note  pealed  by  the  priest  with 
a will,  drinking  deeper,  deeper,  deeper,  and  becoming  more 
wildly  excited  at  the  thought  that  but  a few  hours  remain.  But 
from  11:30  p.  m.,  when  the  bell  began  tolling,  and  continues  to 
toll  till  midnight,  when  it  ends  abruptly,  the  orchestra  of  the 
Holy  Church,  as  it  were,  playing  for  Bacchus  and  the  devil,  the 
scene  absolutely  beggars  description.  Pandemonium  reigns,  and 

*Wallace;  Russia,  Vol.  L,  pp  150,  151.  Edition  of  1878. 

146 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


all  thoughts  of  morality,  or  propriety,  or  decorum,  are  thrown 
broadcast  to  the  winds.  All  give  themselves  up  to  an  unbridled 
bestial  orgy,  till  clang,  clang,  clang  goes  the  big  bell,  tolling  the 
hour  of  12,  the  hour  ordained  by  the  Church  for  the  feast  to 
cease,  and  with  it  gaiety,  the  dancing,  the  drinking — all. 

“From  that  moment  till  Easter,  seven  long  weeks,  must  the 
peasant  fast.  Flesh,  fowl,  m.ilk,  eggs,  butter,  sugar  and  in  the 
last  week  and  on  every  Wednesday  and  Friday  even  fish  is  denied 
him ; but  this  is  not  really  of  such  great  significance,  seeing 
that  his  means  will  not,  as  a rule,  permit  him  to  purchase  it. 
Those  who  are  very  strict  practice  total  abstinence  during  the 
three  days  previous  to  Easter  Day.  All  drinks  except  water 
are  forbidden”* 

Referring  to  conditions  during  an  earlier  period, 
that  of  the  Muscovite  Rennaissance,  Alfred  Rambaud, 
Chief  of  the  Cabinet  of  Ministry  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion and  Fine  Arts  of  Paris,  and  Corresponding  Mem- 
ber of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  of  Petrograd,  Avrites : 

“Owing  to  the  general  ignorance,  there  was  no  intellectual 
life  in  Russia;  owing  to  the  seclusion  of  women,  there  was  no 
society.  Compared  with  the  gallant  and  witty  society  of  Po- 
land, Russia  seems  a vast  monastery.  The  devil  lost  nothing 
in  the  long  run.  The  nobles,  living  in  the  midst  of  slaves  sub- 
jected to  their  caprices,  degraded  themselves  while  they  de- 
graded their  victims.  Debauchery  and  drunkenness  were  the  na- 
tional sins.  Rich  and  poor,  young  and  old,  women  and  children, 
often  dropped  down  dead  drunk  in  the  streets,  without  sur- 
prising any  one.  The  priests,  in  their  visits  to  their  sheep,  got 
theologically  drunk.  ‘Even  at  the  houses  of  the  great  lords,’ 
says  M.  Zabielin,  ‘no  feast  was  gay  and  joyous  unless  every 
one  was  drunk.  It  was  precisely  in  drunkenness  that  the  gay- 
ety  consisted.  The  guests  were  never  gay  if  they  were  not 
drunk.’  To  this  very  day,  ‘to  be  merry’  signifies  to  have  been 
drinking.  The  preachers,  even,  while  attacking  the  national 
vice,  touched  it  delicately.  ‘My  brothers,’  says  one  of  them, 
‘what  is  worse  than  drunkenness?  You  lose  memory  and 
reason,  like  a madman,  who  knows  not  what  he  does.  Is  this 
mirth,  my  friends,  mirth  according  to  the  law  and  glory  of 
God?  The  drunkard  is  senseless.  He  lies  like  a corpse.  If 

*Kennard;  The  Russian  Peasant,  pp.  87-9. 

T47 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


you  speak  to  him,  he  grunts  like  a brute.  He  foams,  he  stinks, 
he  grunts  like  a brute.  Think  of  his  poor  soul  which  grows 
foul  in  its  vile  body,  which  is  its  prison.  Drunkenness  sends 
our  guardian  angels  away  and  makes  the  devil  merry.  To  be 
drunk,  is  to  perform  sacrifices  to  Satan.  The  devil  rejoices,  and 
says:  ‘No;  the  sacrifices  of  the  pagans  never  caused  me  half 
so  much  joy  and  happiness  as  the  intoxication  of  a Christian.’ 
Fly,  then,  my  brothers,  the  curse  of  drunkenness.  To  drink  is 
lawful,  and  is  to  the  glory  of  God,  who  has  given  us  wine  to 
make  us  rejoice.  The  Fathers  were  far  from  forbidding  wine, 
but  we  must  never  drink  ourselves  drunk.’  ”* 

Current  writers  on  Russian  affairs,  who  have 
penetrated  into  the  rural  districts,  frequently  note 
being  within  “smelling  distance”  of  a Russian  village. 
The  village  is  a collection  of  peasant  homes.  Let  Dr. 
Kennard  describe  the  average  Russian  izha : 

“We  have  said  before  that  there  is  no  chimney  in  the  ordi- 
nary izha.  The  steam,  as  shown  above,  finds  vent  within,  and 
the  wretched  inmates  not  only  wallow  like  pigs  in  this  pesti- 
lential atmosphere,  blended  of  the  excretory  putrescences  ex- 
haled from  the  bodies  of  men  and  animals — for  there  lies 
a pig,  and  yet  again  fowls  — but  he  actually  utilizes  it  at 
times  for  the  purpose  of  a vapor  bath.  He  loves  this  vapor- 
laden condition — he  has  been  brought  up  on  it ; it  is  to  him  as 
the  breezes  of  the  hills  and  dales  are  to  the  hardy  Scot,  and  he 
would  be  lost  without  it.  It  breeds  a sense  of  cozj^  well-being 
in  him.  One  can  say,  without  the  slightest  exaggeration,  that 
he  loves  this  foul-smelling,  nauseating  hell  far  better  than  the 
limitless  expanse  of  fresh  air  outside.  He  is  part  and  parcel 
of  his  own  filth-sodden  izba. 

“The  stove,  besides  acting  the  part  of  vapor  and  warmth 
producer,  is  used  as  a kitchener,  in  which  everj^thing  is  cook- 
ed, and  as  a sort  of  open  wardrobe  on  which  even^dhing  is 
laid  to  keep  warm.  Further,  it  is  used  as  a public  bed  for  the 
family,  for  on  the  top  of  this  sleep  during  the  night,  and  fre- 
quently during  the  long  winter  days,  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren— as  many  as  can  crowd  on  its  broad,  accommodating  sur- 
face. Here  they  congregate  in  a huddled  mass — man  with  wife, 
brother  with  sister,  and  as  often  as  not  a son  will  marr>'  and 

*Rambaud’s  History  of  Russia,  Yol  I.,  pp.  297,  298. 

148 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


escort  his  spouse  to  the  top  of  the  self-same  stove,  there  to 
take  her  place  among  her  newly  found  relatives,  and  add  yet 
one  more  human  item  to  the  already  overcrowded  izba.  Pigs, 
lambs,  fowls,  lie  where  they  may,  and  all  are  covered  with 
loathsome  parasites  of  varied  breed,  of  which  the  peasant  takes 
not  the  faintest  notice.  Custom  has  inured  him  to  their  at- 
tacks, and  so  the  disgusting  reptiles  live  their  life  unimpeded 
year  in,  year  out.  Fresh  air  there  is  none,  except  occasionally 
admitted  throughout  the  outside  door,  and  ‘filtered’  through 
the  comparative  purity  of  the  outside  room.”* 

In  Siberia,  conditions  similar  to  those  in  Euro- 
pean Russia  prevail,  but  are  complicated  by  local 
peculiarities.  The  convict  population  and  the  native 
tribes  injected  new  factors  into  the  situation  there. 
In  1894,  there  were  18  distilleries  and  22  breweries  in 
Western  Siberia,  and  16  distilleries  and  9 breweries 
in  Eastern  Siberia.  In  the  Amur  district,  there  were 
one  distillery  and  sixteen  breweries.  These  did  not 
supply  the  demand  and  considerable  quantities  of 
wines  and  strong  liquors  were  imported,  chiefly 
through  Odessa  and  Vladivostock.  The  vodka  traffic 
fell  largely  into  the  hands  of  one  Kosiello  Poklevsky, 
who  became  known  as  the  “Vodka  King.”  Vodka 
played  the  principal  part  in  trade  with  the  natives. 
On  saints’  days  and  saints’  Mondays,  the  working 
men  in  the  mines,  as  well  as  the  peasants,  would  pour 
their  earnings  down  their  throats.  The  peasants  of 
Minusinsk  are  said  to  have  consumed  vodka  to  the 
extent  of  more  than  a million  roubles  during  the  year 
1896.  Usury  and  all  sorts  of  evils  followed  in  the 
wake  of  these  practices.  Official  statistics  show  that 
the  average  interest  on  loans  in  Irkutsk  amounted  to 
5 per  cent  per  month  and  occasionally  as  much  as 
200  per  cent  per  annum.  Mr.  J.  Stadling,  who  was 
sent  to  the  delta  of  the  Lena  by  the  Swedish  govern- 

♦Kennard;  Russian  Peasant,  pp.  30,  31. 


149 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


ment,  to  search  for  traces  of  the  lost  explorer  Andree, 
gives  this  glimpse  into  drinking  conditions  in  the 
Yakut  country; 

“At  one  of  these  stations  I witnessed  a touching  scene.  It 
was  the  home  of  one  of  the  boys  who  accompanied  us  as  row- 
ers. His  parents  seemed  to  be  above  the  average  with  regard  to 
intelligence  and  cleanliness.  When  we  were  about  to  leave,  I 
overheard  the  mother  seriously  talking  to  her  son  in  a half- 
whispering tone.  Understanding  very  little  of  the  Yakut 
language,  I asked  our  interpreter — a Cossack  officer,  who  stood 
by  me — what  she  was  saying.  Somewhat  reluctantly  he  ex- 
plained that  the  good  mother  was  warning  her  son  that  he 
‘should  be  on  the  watch  against  the  evil  ways  of  the  Russian.’ 
At  the  very  next  station  I had  an  opportunity  of  observing 
that  this  warning  of  the  heathen  mother  against  the  evils  ways 
of  Christians  was  not  superfluous,  for  here  we  found  all 
the  natives  dead  drunk,  one  of  the  ‘Christian’  Russians  hav- 
ing recently  been  there  selling  vodka  to  the  poor  people. 

“Besides  the  great  harm  which  liquor  does  among  the  na- 
tives, there  is  the  evil  influence  of  criminals  to  be  reckoned 
with,  the  worst  class  of  whom  are  let  loose  among  these  inno- 
cent people,  who  have  to  keep  them  in  their  homes.  These  un- 
welcome ‘guests’  of  course  invariably  play  the  parts  of  mas- 
ters, demoralizing  both  young  and  old,  and  not  seldom  both 
morally  and  physically  ruining  the  girls.’’* 

From  time  to  time  sporadic  attempts  have  been 
made  to  alleviate  these  conditions,  but  the  appalling 
proportions  of  the  problem  and  the  mountains  of  diffi- 
culty lying  in  the  way  made  such  efforts  appear  hope- 
less.  The  Orthodox  church  was  splendidly  organized 
and  equipped,  but  both  the  church  and  the  people 
were  so  thoroughly  inoculated  with  the  idea  that  re- 
ligion had  to  do  with  belief  and  form  rather  than  with 
conduct  that  the  church  was  of  little  or  no  avail  as  a 
remedial  agent.  The  natural  sympathies  of  the  people 
were  directed  to  rescuing  victims  of  the  vodka  rather 
than  to  shutting  off  the  causes  of  the  great  deluge  of 

*Stadling;  Through  Siberia,  p.  152. 


150 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


national  misery.  In  the  year  1652,  a conclave  was  as- 
sembled to  discuss  the  liquor  problem  under  the  rule 
of  Alexis  (1645-76),  second  Tsar  of  the  Romanov 
dynasty.  It  was  a serious  attempt  and  it  was  decided 
that  there  should  be  thereafter  but  one  liquor  shop  in 
each  large  city  and  none  whatever  in  the  smaller  ones. 
Under  the  support  of  Alexis,  this  policy  was  con- 
tinued for  eleven  years,  but  the  government  revenues 
were  so  affected  that  the  temperance  policy  was 
abandoned. 

The  alcoholic  practices  of  the  people  and  serfdom 
developed  side  by  side,  and  drink  excess  reached  its 
climax  at  the  same  time  that  serfdom  was  most  widely 
established,  in  the  two  decades  previous  to  the  eman- 
cipation by  Alexander  II.  in  1862.  It  was  during  this 
period  that  desultory  attempts  were  made  to  accom- 
plish better  conditions  as  to  drink.  As  early  as  1834, 
some  temperance  publications,  obtained  from  America, 
were  translated  and  published  in  Russian,  Lettish, 
Esthonian  and  the  Finnish  languages.  This  under- 
taking was  that  of  an  American  residing  in  Russia 
whose  name  I have  been  unable  to  obtain.  In  Octo- 
ber, 1840,  another  American,  Robert  Baird,  visited 
Russia,  had  an  interview  with  Tsar  Nicholas,  who 
promised  to  have  translated  into  Russian  Baird’s  His- 
tory of  the  Temperance  Societies  in  America.  Ten 
thousand  copies  of  the  Russian  translation  were  print- 
ed, and  5,000  of  the  Finnish.  In  this  same  year,  at 
Hoffungsthal,  near  Odessa,  a German  landlord  offered 
to  pay  the  government  himself  the  amount  of  the 
liquor  license  fees  provided  the  liquor  shops  were  ex- 
cluded from  his  estate.  In  1854,  during  the  Crimean 
war,  costly  errors  in  military  operations  on  both 
sides  were  made  through  the  drunkenness  of  respon- 
sible officers.  There  were  times  when  the  siege  of 

151 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


Sebastopal  came  near  being  ruined  by  drunken  of- 
ficers. Writing  under  date  of  November  25,  1854, 
Dr.  Russell,  the  war  correspondent  of  the  London 
Times,  reported,  “A  drunken  man  may  put  an  end 
to  the  British  expedition.”*  In  1858,  the  clergy 
took  up  the  temperance  question  in  earnest,  promot- 
ing total  abstinence  among  the  peasants,  and  with 
striking  results.  “In  some  places,  the  consumption 
diminished  to  one-twelfth  of  its  normal  extent.  Some 
estate  owners  sought  to  weaken  the  movement  by  re- 
ducing the  price  of  spirits.  On  some  estates  the  dis- 
tilleries were  closed.  One  nobleman,  a great  land- 
owner  in  Padolia,  made  vigorous  efiorts  to  persuade 
his  peasants  to  abandon  the  use  of  vodka.  Temper- 
ance unions  were  established  in  the  provinces  of 
Kursk,  Nizhnei  and  Kazan,  Saratov  and  Astrakhan. ’’f 
On  the  following  year,  1859,  the  movement  reach- 
ed its  height.  “Five  thousand  workmen  employed  in 
the  great  building  establishments  of  Petrograd  took 
the  pledge.  At  Wilna,  the  corporation  of  Shoemakers 
and  Joiners  formed  a league  to  root  out  the  custom 
of  drinking  ardent  spirits.  Backsliders  were  sub- 
jected to  penalties  of  various  kinds.  In  many  com- 
munes, the  newly  reformed  peasants  carried  their 
zeal  to  an  extent  that  the  authorities  did  not  approve. 
The  Minister  of  the  Interior,  in  a dispatch  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Central  Provinces,  ordered  that  ‘when- 
ever the  peasants  resolve  to  abstain  from  spirituous 
liquors,  they  must  not  be  hindered  in  so  laudable  a 
design,  provided  that  those  who  take  the  pledge  do 
not  attempt  to  punish  those  who  differ  with  them’.”i 

*Quoted  in  Burns’  Temperance  History,  Vol.  I.,  p.  370. 

■fibid,  p.  424. 

tlbid,  p.  437. 


152 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


During  the  sixties  the  people  were  so  engrossed 
in  reorganizing  themselves  under  the  new  conditions 
arising  from  the  emancipation  of  1862  that  the  liquor 
evil  was  largely  lost  sight  of.  It  was  resurrected 
somewhat  in  the  seventies.  In  1872,  the  workmen 
employed  in  the  silver  works  at  Moscow  united  in 
taking  an  abstinence  pledge  for  one  year.  Members 
who  violated  the  pledge  were  fined  one  rouble.  In 
1874  a large  number  of  communes  began  exercising 
the  rights  of  local  self-government  conferred  upon 
them  at  the  time  of  the  emancipation  twelve  years 
before.  These  communes  forbade  the  sale  of  vodka 
to  habitual  drinkers  and  made  the  sellers  liable  for 
damages  arising  from  their  trade.  In  the  district  of 
Pensa,  200  communes  went  farther  and  prohibited  the 
sale  by  peasant  proprietors,  which  was  almost  equiva- 
lent to  general  prohibition  in  that  district. 

During  the  eighties  another  movement  was  sprung 
which  amounted  to  little  at  the  time,  but,  on  ac- 
count of  the  high  character  of  the  men  responsible 
for  it,  had  large  influence  in  later  years.  In  1886,  ac- 
companied by  his  wife.  Dr.  Peter  Semyonovich  Alex- 
yiev,  of  Moscow,  a close  friend  of  Count  Leo  Tolstoi, 
visited  America  for  the  purpose  of  inspecting  hos- 
pitals, prisons  and  elementary  schools.  Becoming  in- 
terested in  the  American  contest  against  drunkenness, 
he  began  agitating  the  temperance  question  on  his  re- 
turn the  following  year.  Being  a man  of  high  stand- 
ing, education,  courage  and  of  great  activity,  his  ef- 
forts made  a lasting  impression.  In  the  preface  to  a 
volume,  “About  America,”  which  he  published  in  1888, 
he  noted. 

“Neither  the  wonder  of  wild  nature  in  the  Rocky  Mountains 
nor  the  menacing  might  and  grandeur  of  Niagara,  produce  such 
an  impression  on  a Russian  as  the  success  of  the  fight  with 

153 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


drunkenness  — the  temperance  movement  — and  the  successful 
development,  in  all  classes  of  society,  of  morality  and  the  strict 
application  of  practical  morals.” 

He  wrote  much  on  the  subject  for  various  learned 
Russian  societies  and  also  a work,  Concerning  Drunk- 
enness, which  was  published*  in  Moscow  by  the  maga- 
zine Russkaya  Mysl  (Russian  Thought),  first  in  a 
cheap,  abridged  form.  In  1901  an  enlarged  and  per- 
manent edition  was  published  at  one  rouble,  prefaced 
by  a dissertation  by  Count  Tolstoi  entitled.  Why  Do 
People  Stupefy  Themselvesff  This  dissertation  was 
translated  and  published  in  London  under  the  caption, 
Alcohol  and  Tobacco.  In  1896  another  edition  of  Dr. 
Alexyiev’s  book,  enlarged  and  revised,  was  published! 
in  Moscow,  to  which  was  added  a comprehensive 
bibliography  of  the  temperance  reform.  The  bibliog- 
raphy contained  705  items  for  Great  Britain  and  the 
Colonies,  142  for  the  United  States,  247  for  Germany, 
124  for  ten  other  countries  combined  (up  to  1885 
all  these  cases),  to  ten  for  Russia.  Of  these  ten,  four 
are  in  Latin,  four  in  German,  one  is  in  Swedish  and 
one  in  Russian,  the  latter,  evidently,  an  article  re- 
published from  The  Medical  News.  There  appeared 
no  item  in  the  Russian  language. 

Count  Tolstoi  took  up  the  reform  in  characteris- 
tic fashion.  He  was  an  evangelist,  a prophet,  rather 
than  an  organizer  of  reform.  The  Count,  in  1887, 
ordered  the  starosta  of  his  village  to  summon  all  the 

*The  censor’s  permit  for  this  volume  was  dated  March 
29,  1887. 

fCount  Tolstoi’s  dissertation  was  dated  July  10,  1890,  but 
the  book  itself  was  actually  written  in  1899. 

JThis  edition  was  prepared  by  Dr.  Alexyiev  at  Riga,  in 
1895,  where  he  lived  after  his  return  from  government  medical 
service  in  Siberia  until  his  death  in  August,  1913. 


154 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


inhabitants  at  lo  o’clock  in  the  morning.  A table 
and  bench  were  placed  before  the  communal  house, 
and  of  what  took  place  there  a writer  tells  the  fol- 
lowing story; 

“The  Count  took  out  of  his  pocket  a piece  of  paper  and  put 
it  on  the  table  with  a bottle  of  ink  and  pen.  Great  curiosity 
was  aroused.  When  all  were  present,  he  gave  them  a lecture 
in  plain,  simple  language  of  the  dangers  of  drunkenness,  on 
the  evils  that  followed  the  use  of  tobacco  and  vodka.  He 
spoke  slowly  and  persuasively,  urging  arguments  that  would  ap- 
peal to  peasant  folk  and  introducing  striking  anecdotes  and 
similes. 

“The  women  urged  their  husbands  to  follow  Tolstoi’s  ad- 
vice ; so,  seeing  that  he  had  them  on  his  side,  he  asked  those 
who  would  agree  henceforth  to  drink  no  more,  to  sign  the 
pledge. 

“‘Do  you  consent?’  he  cried. 

“Just  at  that  moment  a harsh  voice  sounded:  ‘Let  him 
pass.’ 

“‘Room  for  Yeagor  Ivanovich,’  cried  the  peasants,  and  an 
old  mujik  stepped  forward. 

“‘I  want  to  speak  a word  about  temperance,’  said  he.  ‘I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  at  weddings,  births 
and  baptisms,  it  is  impossible  to  get  along  without  vodka.  One 
can  do  without  smoking,  but  vodka — that  is  different.  It  is  in- 
dispensable. Our  fathers  always  drank  it;  we  must  do  the 
same.’ 

“‘You  can  substitute  sugared  rose-water,’  replied  Tolstoi. 
‘In  the  south  rose-water  is  always  served  with  sherbets  thick 
as  honey.’ 

“‘Doesn’t  that  make  men  drunk?’  asked  many  at  once. 

“‘No.’ 

“‘Put  your  hand  in  front  of  your  mouth,  Yeagor  Ivanovich. 
Do  you  need  to  keep  it  wide  open?’  whispered  the  women. 
‘Sign  it !’ 

“‘Do  you,  then,  agree?’  asked  the  Count  again. 

“‘Yes.  Yes.’ 

“The  mujiks  crowded  up  to  the  table;  the  women  were 
radiant ; even  the  children  seemed  to  realize  that  something 
great  was  happening;  the  idea  of  sugared  rose-water  enchanted 
them. 


^55 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


“‘So  then,  no  more  vodka,  nor  more  tobacco?’ 

“ ‘No.  There’s  an  end  of  smoking  and  drinking.  You  have 
promised.’ 

Tolstoi  -was  far  more  considerate  of  the  mujik 
who  got  drunk  than  he  was  of  the  men  of  culture, 
students  and  professors  who  drank  in  the  presence  of 
waiters  and  thus  set  an  example  of  evil.  He  saw  a 
certain  charm  in  the  affection  displayed  by  the  tipsy 
mujik,  but  for  the  educated  classes  who  drank,  he 
poured  out  his  vials  of  wrath.  Against  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  anniversary  of  the  University  of  Moscow, 
which  ended  in  much  drunkenness  and  debauchery, 
the  Count  launched  a diatribe  in  his  Culture’s  Holiday 
which  aroused  much  protest. 

In  1885  the  excise  laws  were  remodeled  and  in- 
cluded what  was  really  a local  option  measure.  The 
people  themselves,  through  their  elected  representa- 
tives in  the  urban  municipalities  and  in  the  rural  com- 
munities in  the  country  districts,  were  empowered  to 
limit  the  number  of  licensed  houses,  or  even  to  abolish 
them  altogether.  By  another  enactment  vodka  could 
only  be  consumed  on  the  premises  by  the  working 
classes  in  traktirs — eating  houses  where  food  as  well 
as  drink  was  supplied. 

Another  measure  which  indirectly  aided  in  raising 
the  status  of  the  working  classes  and  preparing  the 
ground  for  temperance  reform  was  the  complete  re- 
vision of  the  factory  laws.  Before  the  law  of  1886 
many  employers  of  labor  gave  their  workpeople  vodka 
as  part  of  their  remuneration.  This  was  made  a crim- 
inal offense,  entailing  a severe  penalty.  All  compen- 
sation for  labor  was  required  to  be  in  cash. 

The  activities  of  Alexyiev  and  Tolstoi  had  no  im- 

*Nathan  Haskell  Dole;  Life  of  Count  Lyof  N.  Tolstoi, 
p.  322. 


RUSSIAN  DRINKING  CONDITIONS 


portant  immediate  effect,  but  the  strong  utterances  of 
men  of  such  high  standing,  widely  circulated  through- 
out the  empire,  laid  the  foundation  for  greater  things 
to  follow.  In  1890,  there  were  few  temperance  or- 
ganizations left  in  Russia.  The  society  at  Petrograd 
was  quite  active  and  had  six  branches.  A society  ex- 
isted in  Kronstadt  and  one  in  Esthonia.  On  May  12, 
twelve  students  in  the  religious  academy  at  Petrograd 
took  the  solemn  pledge.  On  March  5,  1890,  Professor 
Antonious  of  the  Academy  formed  a society  among 
the  workmen  at  Howard’s  paper  factory.  Providence 
appeared  to  be  opening  the  way  for  the  introduction 
of  the  government  monopoly  idea  on  a scale  never 
before  attempted  in  the  history  of  the  world.  The 
rise  and  development  of  this  institution  was  set  forth 
in  the  preceding  chapter.  Its  final  overthrow  will  be 
recorded  in  the  last  chapter  of  this  book. 


157 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS. 

ON  September  i,  1894,  Dr.  N.  Grig- 
oriev, a physician  of  Petrograd, 
established  a monthly  temperance 
magazine,  the  Viestnik  Tresvosti 
(“Messenger  of  Temperance”).  Dr. 
Grigoriev  was  a man  of  wealth,  of 
scholarship  and  of  purpose.  He  was 
wise  enough  to  conduct  his  publication 
along  conservative  lines  and  thus 
avoided  trouble  with  the  censor.  And 
yet  he  recorded  the  facts  as  they  ex- 
isted. The  periodical  is  still  being 
published  by  Dr.  Grigoriev  at  32  Gorokhovaia,  Petro- 
grad, and  is  the  first  permanent  temperance  publica- 
tion launched  in  the  Russian  Empire.  He  lighted  a 
fire  that  eventually  spread  all  over  Russia  and  helped 
to  create  a condition  that  made  possible  the  over- 
throw of  the  government  monopoly,  which,  curiously 
enough,  was  established  under  a law  enacted  only 
three  months  prior  to  the  launching  of  the  magazine 
itself. 

The  monopoly  was  instituted  from  mixed  motives. 
There  were  those  who  hoped  and  believed  that  the 
project  would  relieve  the  stress  of  drunkenness  and 
would  tend  to  better  things.  On  the  other  hand, 
others  looked  only  at  the  fiscal  side  of  the  enterprise. 
Indeed,  the  monopoly  had  been  introduced  into  four 
provinces  in  1893  an  experiment  and,  in  presenting 
the  proposal  to  the  Council  of  the  Empire,  the  Min- 

159 


7?  ‘ n 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


ister  of  Finance  said : “The  tax  on  alcohol  can  give 
the  government  all  the  revenue  that  it  needs,  which 
would  be  more  than  we  get  now,  with  much  less  in- 
convenience.”* Unfortunately  for  the  temperance 
side  of  the  proposal,  the  actual  administration  of  the 
monopoly  {Monopolka)  was  left  almost  entirely  in 
the  hands  of  those  interested  in  the  fiscal  side  of  the 
project.  Temperance,  accordingly,  suffered. 

The  law  inaugurating  the  monopoly  as  the  gen- 
eral policy  of  the  government  was  enacted  on  June 
6,  1894,  and  entitled  the  “Law  Concerning  the  Sale 
of  Liquor.”  From  that  time  on,  for  several  years,  tem- 
perance effort  was  at  a low  ebb.  The  friends  of  tem- 
perance were  generally  disposed  to  wait  until  the  re- 
sults of  the  monopoly  system  became  apparent. 

One  important  exception  to  this  was  the  installa- 
tion of  an  extensive  temperance  enterprise  at  Moscow 
under  the  leadership  of  Grand  Duke  Sergius,  Gov- 
ernor General  of  Moscow  and  uncle  of  the  Tsar.  This 
movement  had  a stormy  birth.  Sergius  was  a reac- 
tionary of  the  reactionaries.  He  ruled  with  a tyran- 
nical hand  and,  on  the  morning  of  February  17,  1905, 
shortly  after  he  inaugurated  the  temperance  enter- 
prise, he  was  blown  to  pieces  by  a dynamite  bomb, 
thrown  by  a young  man  named  Kaliayev,  while  riding 
through  St.  Nicholas  gate  of  the  Kremlin.  His  wife. 
Grand  Duchess  Elizabeth  Feodorovna,  a woman  of  the 
highest  character,  was  so  horrified  at  the  shocking 
tragedy  that  she  renounced  the  world,  organized  a 
convent  and  entered  the  same  under  the  name  of  Sister 
Beatrice.  Sergius,  while  recognized  as  a tyrant  and  a 
man  of  alleged  peculiar  vices,  must  be  given  the  credit 

*P.  Pavlov,  in  Sovremennaya  Illustratsia,  Petrograd,  Jan. 
29,  1915. 


160 


WINE  SKINS  AND  WINE  , SHOPS  OF  TIFLIS 

THE  DISTRICT  OF  KAKHETA,  NOT  FAR  FROM  TIFLIS,  IN 
THE  CAUCASIAN  REGION,  IS  FAMED  FOR  ITS  WINES.  THESE 
ARE  MARKETED  IN  SKINS  IN  THE  BAZAAR  OF  TIFLIS.  UN- 
LIKE OTHER  EASTERN  COUNTRIES,  A WHOLE  OX  SKIN  IS 
MADE  INTO  A WINE  CONTAINER,  THE  BURDYUKI.  WHEN 
ONE  WISHES  A DRINK,  THE  LACE  IS  LOOSED  FROM  THE 
FORELEG  OF  THE  SKIN  AND  THE  WINE  PROCURED.  TPIE 
WINE  SHOP  ITSELF  IS  BELOW  THE  STREET,  WHERE,  IN 
A SORT  OF  A BOVINE  CATACOMB,  ROWS  OF  WINE-FILLED 
BEEF  SKINS  ARE  TO  BE  FOUND  INSTEAD  OF  BARRELS.  THE 
WINE  IS  HAULED  INTO  THE  MARKET  ON  CARTS  DRAWN 
BY  OXEN,  WHOSE  OWN  SKINS,  AFTER  DEATH,  ARE  OFTEN 
MADE  INTO  WINE  RECEPTACLES  FOR  OTHER  OXEN  TO 
DRAW.  THE  WINE  OF  THE  WELL-TO-DO  IS  A TAWNY  PORT 
IN  COLOR.  THAT  OF  THE  POORER  CLASSES  IS  THIN,  SOUR 
AND  VERY  CHEAP.  THE  WINE  SHOP  IS  THE  CAUCASIAN 
CENTER  OF  GOSSIP,  THE  SA.ME  AS  IN  WESTERN  COUNTRIES. 


RUSSIAN  NATIONAL 
TYPE 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


for  the  foundation  of  the  first  great  temperance  insti- 
tution in  the  Russian  Empire. 

These  Moscow  enterprises  now  reach  enormous 
proportions  and  are  all  centered  around  the  so-called 
Alexis  Public  Temperance  House.  This  concern 
covers  a great  block  of  ground.  There  are  the  offices 
of  administration,  a gigantic  restaurant  where  good 
food  is  served  cheaply  and  without  intoxicants,  a 
drinkless  theater,  a sort  of  a playground,  reading 
rooms,  all  on  an  extensive  scale.  During  the  summer 
months,  more  than  200  employees  are  required  to 
conduct  the  establishment.  At  this  establishment, 
nothing  is  done  except  to  provide  amusements,  eating 
facilities,  theater  performances  and  reading  rooms 
without  alcoholic  attachments.  No  direct  temperance 
work  is  attempted  and  no  pledges  of  abstinence  are 
solicited.  It  is  purely  a “substitute”  and  as  good  a 
one  as  could  be  devised.  It  takes  its  name  from  the 
Crown  Prince  of  the  Empire,  the  Tsarevich  Alexis,  a 
lad  now  in  his  teens  and  in  frail  health.  Every  year,  a 
special  photograph  of  Prince  Alexis  is  made  and  fram- 
ed to  be  hanged  on  the  walls  of  the  great  dining  hall 
of  the  institution.  These  photographs  half  surround 
the  big  room. 

About  a mile  away  from  the  main  establishment 
is  the  principal  library  from  which  the  temperance 
propaganda  proper  is  carried  on.  This  library  con- 
tains 8,620  carefully  selected  scientific  volumes,  at- 
tached to  which  is  an  elaborate  chemical  laboratory. 
This  part  of  the  work  is  now  under  the  direction  of 
two  Russian  scientists.  Dr.  Michael  Ivanovitch  Belski 
and  Dr.  Nicholai  Alexandrovitch  Flehoff.  Connected 
with  them  is  a staff  of  investigators,  writers  and  lec- 
turers. Their  work  is  chiefly  through  the  teachers. 
They  address  teachers’  gatherings  and  instruct  teach- 

i6r 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


ers  in  the  evils  of  alcohol  drinking.  They  conduct  ex- 
periments in  the  laboratory  and  demonstrate  to  the 
teachers  what  alcohol  will  do  to  the  human  body. 
Gatherings  of  teachers  come  to  Moscow  at  different 
times  to  study  in  the  library  and  attend  the  lectures. 
Connected  with  this  main  library  is  about  a dozen 
small  branch  libraries  in  different  parts  of  the  city, 
some  of  which  are  in  private  houses,  but  all  controlled 
by  the  central  institution.  The  entire  expense  of  this 
work  amounts  to  approximately  1,100,000  roubles,  or 
about  $550,000  in  American  money. 

In  1898,  following  the  lead  of  Grand  Duke  Sergius, 
a most  extensive  temperance  project  was  launched 
under  government  subsidy,  but  under  the  patronage 
and  supervision  of  Alexander,  Prince  of  Oldenburg, 
cousin  of  the  present  Emperor.  The  movement  was 
established  first  at  Petrograd  under  a government 
subsidy  amounting  to  approximately  6,750,000  roubles. 
The  Association,  headed  by  the  Prince,  founded  five 
People’s  Palaces  in  Petrograd  besides  public  gardens 
and  recreation  grounds  in  different  parts  of  the  city, 
where  refreshments  of  all  sorts,  except  alcoholic  bev- 
erages, were  provided  at  cheap  rates.  Theaters  were 
constructed  in  the  grounds,  where  entertainments 
were  given,  while  there  was  provided  a constant  suc- 
cession of  interesting  lectures  on  health  and  temper- 
ance. In  each  of  these  “palaces”  a doctor  attends 
every  Sunday  and  public  holiday,  and  gives  gratuitous 
consultations  to  all  applicants.  The  entertainments 
begin  at  4 in  the  afternoon,  and  continue  until  mid- 
night, with  a break  between  6 and  7 p.  m.,  when 
the  temperance  lecture  is  given.  In  two  of  these 
“People’s  Palaces”  the  entrance  is  gratuitous,  in  the 
others  there  is  a small  fixed  charge.  For  the  main- 
tenance of  these  Temperance  palaces  the  government 

162 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


now  provides  a subsidy  of  260,000  roubles  per  year. 
Other  concerns  of  similar  sort  were  launched  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  Empire.  In  expenditure  of  money, 
the  government  has  been  lavish.  During  the  past  ten 
years,  something  like  45,000,000  roubles  have  been 
expended  on  these  projects.  Temperance,  however,  is 
but  a small  and  indirect  part  of  the  work  of  these  in- 
stitutions. On  the  whole,  they  are  for  general  social 
welfare.  In  some  of  them,  nothing  is  said  about  tem- 
perance, but  temperance  could  not  help  being  some- 
what advanced  by  providing  amusement  enterprises 
at  popular  prices  where  the  visitor  is  not  confronted 
by  the  inevitable  vodka  bottle  and  the  beer  stand. 
The  Petrograd  enterprises  now  include  such  places  as 
Peter’s  Park,  the  Garden  of  Taurida,  the  Garden  of 
Basil  Island,  the  Garden  of  Ekaterinhov,  the  Eloat- 
ing  Public  Dining  Room,  and  the  extensive  operations 
of  the  Municipal  Committee  for  Public  Temperance. 
The  latter,  in  a way,  is  the  parent  of  the  original  in- 
stitution, founded  by  Oldenburg,  which  has  been  in 
existence  for  about  fifteen  years.  This  latter  concern 
now  conducts  six  theaters,  an  anti-alcoholism  muse- 
um, eighteen  public  libraries,  five  popular  dining  rooms 
and  gives  free  instructions  in  national  music.  During 
its  existence,  9,518  performances  were  given  in  the 
theaters  by  the  committee,  the  repertoire  consisting 
of  667  different  plays.  Under  its  direction,  4,907  tem- 
perance lectures  have  been  given,  which  were  attended 
by  1,582,787  persons.  The  committee  libraries  circu- 
lated 320,436  volumes,  its  playgrounds  were  visited  by 
900,000  children,  its  dining  rooms  were  visited  by 
19,000,000  persons  and  its  parks  were  visited  by  68,- 
264,907  people.  Seven  years  ago,  the  committee  estab- 
lished twenty-two  movable  lunch  rooms,  using  nine 
horse  wagons,  three  automobiles,  six  platforms  and 

163 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


four  hand  carts.  During  the  periods  of  its  existence, 
these  movable  con;cerns  have  serv^ed  1,200,000  hot 
meals.  These  various  temperance  societies  of  Petro- 
grad,  under  the  general  leadership  of  the  Prince  of 
Oldenburg,  have  now  developed  into  the  following: 

1.  Petrograd  Temperance  Society,  Great  Ochta.  Porocho- 
vaia  44.  This  is  a concern  to  combat  excessive  drinking  by  the 
population  of  Little  and  Great  Ochta  and  neighboring  localities. 
Honorary  members  pay  five  roubles ; active  members  pay  three 
roubles.  The  society  maintains  a free  public  library  and  read- 
ing room. 

2.  All-Russian  Working  Union  of  Christians.  This  is  a 
total  abstinence  society  under  the  protection  of  Grand  Duke 
Constantine  Constantinovich.  It  is  conducted  on  the  basis  of 
Christian  love  and  mutual  help. 

3.  Alexander  Nevsky  Temperance  Society  of  the  Boshres- 
ensky  Church.  Obvodny  canal  118.  This  is  conducted  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Orthodox  church.  It  organizes  temperance 
unions,  conducts  excursions,  provides  lectures  and  literature.  It 
has  four  schools  and  two  workshops,  one  of  the  latter  being  a 
printing  plant  that  has  many  branches,  ten  of  which  are  as  fol- 
lows : 

In  the  Putilov  factory,  Petergovskoie  Shosse  80. 

At  Baltisky  street  ii. 

On  the  Vassily  Ostrov,  Great  Prospect  61. 

At  Mitavsky  Pereulok  4. 

At  Great  Spaskaia  53. 

At  Smolensky  street,  Port  Arthur  House. 

In  the  village  of  Martyshkino,  Petrograd  district. 

In  Kronstadt. 

In  Tsarskoie  Selo. 

In  Oranieubaum  and  some  other  places. 

4.  Voniratyvskoe  Temperance  Societj-,  connected  with  the 
Spasso-Preobrashensky  church.  Sabalkanskj'  103. 

5.  Kasnaskoe  Temperance  Society.  Connected  with  the 
Kasnaskoe  Society  for  the  propagation  of  religious  and  moral 
education  according  to  the  Orthodox  Creed.  Great  Ochta,  Tanfi- 
lova  33. 

6.  Matthew  Temperance  Society.  Connected  with  Matthew 
Church.  Matveevskaia  8.  The  society  has  about  8,000  total  ab- 
staining members,  of  whom  600  are  women. 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


7.  The  First  Russian  Sergei  School  of  Temperance.  Old 
Sergieva  Pustyn,  N.  W.  Railway.  The  society  has  two  parish 
schools  with  one  class  for  girls  on  the  premises  of  the  society 
and  one  school,  with  two  classes  for  boys,  opposite  monastery 
Troitsky  Sergieva  Pustyn.  Besides  general  education,  the  “science 
of  temperance”  is  taught  and  agriculture.  This  is  one  of  the 
most  famous  institutions  of  its  kind  in  Russia. 

8.  Finnish  Temperance  Society  Alkov.  The  work  of  this 
society  is  among  the  Finnish  people  of  Petrograd  and  vicinity. 
It  has  three  choirs  and  pays  much  attention  to  music. 

9.  The  Esthonian  Temperance  Society  Jaith.  Small  Breb- 
etzkaia  3.  The  society  has  a library.  It  combats  excessive  drink- 
ing among  the  Esthonian  people  of  Petrograd  and  vicinity. 

10.  The  Oulianovskoie  Parish  Temperance  Society.  Con- 
nected with  the  Church  of  Holy  Peter  Metropolitan.  Peter- 
govskoie  Shosse  30.  The  society  has  a parish  school. 

11.  The  Serafimovskoie  Temperance  Society.  Connected 
with  Serafim  Church. 

Another  and  a newer  society  that  has  come  into 
much  prominence  is  the  Society  for  Fighting  Against 
Alcohol  in  the  Public  Schools.*  This  concern  is  sim- 

*The  officers  and  members  of  this  organization  are 

Prof.  A.  A.  Kornilov,  University  of  Moscow,  President. 

I.  Subbotin,  Secretary-Treasurer. 

Honorary  Member;  President  of  the  Moscow  Temperance 
Association,  Major  General  W.  F.  Jounkovsky. 

Members ; Dr.  W.  G.  Archangelsky,  Dr.  L.  P.  Bogolepov, 
Dr.  A.  P.  Bogolepov,  Rev.  P.  W.  Bogoslovski,  A.  F.  Beliakov, 
Dr.  T.  1.  Viasemsky  (Moscow  University),  Dr.  Davidov,  A.  I. 
Elishov,  Dr.  W.  A.  Zagumenski,  Dr.  N.  R.  Ivanshev,  Councillor 
of  State  A.  D.  Italisnky,  S.  S.  Ievlev,  Dr.  A.  M.  Korovin,  Dr. 
M.  U.  Lachtin  (Moscow  University),  A.  V.  Laperovski,  Rev.  N. 
A.  Liubimov,  Dr.  A.  I.  Lianz  (University  of  Moscow),  G.  F. 
Markov,  A.  N.  Ostkevich-Rudnizki,  Councillor  of  State  S.  A. 
Petrovsky,  Councillor  of  State  A.  N.  Popov,  Dr.  W.  T.  Popov, 
Rev.  N.  A.  Porezki,  State  Councillor  A.  S.  Potozki,  Rev.  N.  A. 
Preobrazhenski,  Rev.  N.  P.  Rosanov,  Dr.  K.  N.  Romanovich, 
Councillor  of  State  A.  D.  Samarin,  I.  W.  Subbotin,  Dr.  I.  U. 
Tarasevich,  Dr.  N.  D.  Titoff,  Dr.  T.  N.  Terrian,  A.  A.  Flerov, 
Dr  N.  A.  Flerov,  Prof.  C.  I.  Chervinsky  (Moscow  University), 
W.  B.  Sheremetev,  A.  W.  Shilov,  V.  M.  Shilov. 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


ilar  to  the  American  institution,  the  Scientific  Tem- 
perance Federation,  which  has  its  headquarters  in 
Boston.  Its  work  is  the  promotion  of  the  scientific 
side  of  the  alcohol  problem  in  educational  institutions. 

Besides  the  above  organizations  which  are  dis- 
tinctly temperance  societies,  there  are  many  others 
that  conduct  a temperance  propaganda  in  connection 
with  their  other  religious  or  philanthropic  efforts. 
The  following  are  the  principal  organizations  of  this 
class : 

1.  Resurrection  Alexander  Joseph  Brotherhood.  This 
brotherhood  maintains  an  asylum.  One  for  40  little  boys,  an- 
other for  40  little  girls  and  one  for  25  old  women.  It  has 
a day  asylum  for  40  girls  from  the  street  and  a common  room 
for  10  more. 

2.  Sampsonievsky  Christian  Brotherhood.  Great  Sampson- 
ievsky  37.  The  chief  work  of  this  society  is  moral  and  religious 
instruction  to  combat  drunkenness. 

3.  Nevsky  Orthodox  Brotherhood.  Gavanskaia  63.  This 
is  a society  to  help  each  other  lead  a Christian  life.  It  conducts 
conferences,  holds  lectures,  etc. 

4.  Petrograd  Orthodox  Esthonian  Brotherhood.  Ekater- 
inovsky  Prospect  24.  This  is  controlled  by  Pastor  Isador 
Sourievsky.  The  brotherhood  owns  a church  and  a parish 
school  with  living  rooms  for  the  members.  It  has  a reading 
room,  a free  library,  and  bookstores.  It  is  a sort  of  a social 
center  with  special  reference  to  Esthonian  people.  It  also 
maintains  a free  asylum  for  Esthonian  girls. 

Another  of  the  Imperial  family  to  become  inter- 
ested in  the  temperance  reform  was  Grand  Duke  Con- 
stantine Constantinovich,  uncle  of  the  Tsar.  He  is 
the  president  of  the  All-Russian  Working  Union  of 
Christians  (supra),  and  it  was  partly  through  his  in- 
fluence that  the  Tsar  abolished  the  vodka  monopoly. 
Unlike  some  of  the  Russian  magnates,  Constantine 
advocates  total  abstinence.  The  Grand  Duke  is  prac- 

166 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


tically  the  sole  owner  and  autocrat  of  the  city  of 
Pavlovsk  (pertaining  to  Paul),  which  was,  in  1913, 
practically  the  only  “dry”  city  of  Russia.  The  city 
of  5,000  people  is  located  about  five  miles  south  of 
Tsarskoe  Selo,  the  home  of  the  Tsar.  The  property 
was  formerly  owned  by  Tsar  Paul,  son  of  Catherine 
the  Great.  Drinking  places  in  Pavlovsk  are  forbidden 
by  direction  of  the  Grand  Duke.  It  was  his  aim  to 
run  the  place  as  a “Prohibition  city,”  and  he  succeed- 
ed so  far  as  his  jurisdiction  went.  But  the  railway 
department  of  the  Russian  government,  much  to  the 
disgust  of  the  Duke,  put  a drinking  bar  in  the  Pavlovsk 
government  railway  station  and  the  government  liquor 
monopoly  opened  a sort  of  a “speakeasy”  just  outside 
of  the  city  limits.  Thus  Pavlovsk  became  a dry  city 
with  these  two  important  exceptions. 

It  is  a curious  fact  and  significant  of  the  complex 
and  contradictory  character  of  the  Russian  govern- 
ment and  people  that,  while  these  gigantic  temperance 
enterprises  were  being  conducted  under  the  patronage 
of  members  of  the  Imperial  family,  and  largely  under 
subsidies  of  the  Russian  government,  that  other 
agencies  of  the  same  government  were  working  in 
precisely  the  opposite  direction.  Mr.  Eleonsky,  in  his 
story.  Fighting  for  Temperance,  tells  of  a country 
clergyman,  Father  Paul.  The  bishop  of  the  diocese 
in  which  Father  Paul’s  parish  happened  to  be,  obey- 
ing a circular  of  the  Holy  Synod,  sent  out  orders  to 
his  subordinates  to  fight  the  great  evil.  Father  Paul, 
with  the  aid  of  the  village  head,  persuaded  the  com- 
munity to  petition  the  government  for  the  removal  of 
the  vodka  stores  from  their  district.  When  the  petition 
reached  the  local  Superintendent  of  the  Monopoly  De- 
partment, trouble  straightway  began.  An  official  was 
sent  to  Father  Paul’s  parish  to  investigate  the  case, 

167 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


and  he  discovered  the  “conspiracy”  of  the  clergyman 
and  the  village  head.  A few  days  later,  Father  Paul 
received  a warning  from  the  Bishop  henceforth  not  to 
interfere  in  the  affairs  of  the  village  community,  and 
“in  the  question  of  temperance  to  limit  himself  ex- 
clusively to  moral  persuasion,  taking  good  care  to 
keep  the  same  in  agreement  with  the  Christian  doc- 
trines ; and  should  the  complaint  be  repeated,  a stricter 
punishment  would  be  accorded  to  him.” 

But,  fortunately,  these  attempts  at  repression 
were  sporadic  and  not  general  throughout  the  Empire. 
Those  having  the  conduct  of  the  monopoly  did  what 
they  could  to  discourage  these  efforts,  but  other  in- 
fluences were  at  work,  continually  adding  strength  to 
the  opposition.  Moreover,  the  government  Bureau  of 
Popular  Temperance,  which  had  general  direction  of 
the  numerous  temperance  committees  throughout  the 
country,  began  doing  some  real  valuable  work.  The 
maximum  of  effort  for  this  bureau  was  reached  during 
the  year  1905,  when  70,700  lectures  were  given  under 
its  auspices  in  6,716  towns  and  villages.  These  lec- 
tures were  attended  by  7,400,000  persons  during  the 
year.  Granted  that  these  lectures  were  not  all  very 
radical  in  their  temperance  utterances,  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  they  should  not  have  produced  a pro- 
found impression. 

In  December,  1909,  and  January,  1910,  the  first 
All  Russian  Congress  to  Combat  the  Drink  Evil  was 
held  at  Petrograd,  which  gave  a still  further  impetus 
to  the  anti-alcohol  movement.  This  congress  was 
widely  attended  by  both  conservatives  and  radicals. 
In  order  to  take  part  in  it,  Russian  trades  unionists 
organized  themselves  into  workmen’s  development 
clubs,  printing  ten  thousand  question  lists  for  investi- 

168 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


gation  among  Petrograd  workmen  to  gather  informa- 
tion as  to  conditions  of  labor  and  drink.’’' 

With  the  establishment  of  the  Duma,  all  eyes 
were  turned  to  that  body,  but  not  until  the  third 
Duma  did  the  temperance  question  receive  serious 
attention.  On  December  20,  1907,  the  Duma  passed 
a resolution  expressing  the  hope  that  the  government 
would  restrict  the  sale  of  alcohol  in  the  famine-stricken 
districts.  The  subject  was  discussed  again  in  1908, 
1911  and  1912.  In  the  last-named  year  a Commission 
was  appointed  to  inquire  and  report.  Three  of  its 
recommendations  were  finally  adopted,  the  most  im- 
portant of  which  were  (i)  the  reduction  of  the  alco- 
holic strength  of  vodka  from  40  per  cent  to  37  per 
cent,  and  (2)  the  decision  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
clergy  to  the  evils  of  alcoholism. 

On  May  24,  1913,  during  the  debates  on  the 
budget  in  the  Imperial  Duma,  the  management  of  the 
alcohol  monopoly  came  in  for  fierce  criticism.  One 
member,  I.  N.  Tuliakov,  in  the  debate,  said; 

“The  present  Minister  of  the  Interior  in  conversation  with 
a French  journalist  explained  that  the  drunkenness,  exploited 
by  our  Government,  is  a result  of  the  severe  climate  of  our 
country.  However,  the  fundamental  reason  which  brings  the 
Russian  people  to  the  vodka  evil  is  not  the  climate,  but  poverty, 
oppression,  lack  of  justice,  dreadfully  long  hours  of  labor,  low 
pay,  terrible  housing  conditions,  the  arbitrary  rule  of  the  police, 
the  trampling  under  foot  of  the  human  personality,  regular  and 
systematic  famines.  The  condition  of  laborers  in  the  enter- 
prises controlled  by  the  ministry  of  finance  is  not  better  and 
sometimes  even  worse  than  in  private  enterprises.” 

In  the  course  of  the  same  debates  another  mem- 
ber of  the  Duma,  Prof.  Levashev,  spoke  as  follows : 

“Even  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  fiscal  system  it  is  obvi- 
ously dangerous  to  rest  contented  with  a budget  based  primarily 

*Gordon,  The  Anti-Alcohol  Movement  in  Europe,  p.  162. 

169 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


upon  receipts  from  alcohol.  It  is  clear  that  only  that  tax  can 
grow  progressively  which  is  based  upon  a gradual  increase  of  the 
productive  powers  of  the  country.  An  increase  of  profits  from 
a Government  vodka  monopoly  can  be  considered  as  merely  tem- 
porary. For  this  growth  goes  hand  in  hand  with  a devastation 
of  our  villages,  with  a full  disorganization  of  the  fundamental 
industry  of  our  people,  the  agriculture,  and  with  a constantly 
increasing  poverty.” 

Another  member,  Prince  S.  P.  Mansirev,  also  de- 
nounced the  alcohol  monopoly  in  a spirited  speech 
from  the  tribune  :*  He  said  : 

“In  the  Government  of  Liefland  there  are  vodka  stores  that 
bring  to  land  owners  upon  whose  property  they  are  situated  a 
net  annual  profit  of  6,000  roubles  and  more.  It  is  disgusting  to 
see  a millionaire  rob  poor  workingmen  of  their  last  pennies, 
which  he  puts  into  his  own  pocket,  but  it  is  shameful  to  behold 
our  own  Minister  of  Finance  trudging  along  behind  such 
worthies.” 

During  the  debate,  so  much  mockery  was  made  of 
the  policy  of  the  government  in  gathering  its  revenues 
from  the  vodka  monopoly  and  then  making  appro- 
priations for  the  promotion  of  temperance  that  the 
Duma  decided  to  cut  down  by  500,000  roubles  the  esti- 
mates of  the  government  for  the  temperance  propa- 
ganda. 

In  1904,  the  Russian  Congress  of  IMedical  Men 
met  at  Petrograd  to  discuss  medical  and  sanitary 
questions.  It  was  not  at  all  a temperance  organiza- 
tion, but  it  is  difficult  to  probe  into  such  problems 
without  encountering  the  alcohol  problem.  The  tem- 
perance question  was  discussed  informally  but  earn- 
estly by  the  Medical  Congress,  with  the  result  that 
they  passed  the  following  resolutions ; 

*The  speeches  in  the  Duma  are  not  made  from  the  seats  of 
the  members  as  in  American  Legislative  bodies,  but  from  the 
“tribune,”  a sort  of  a pulpit  arranged  for  the  purpose. 


170 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


“The  spirit  monopoly  not  only  does  not  check  alcoholism  in 
Russia,  but  it  actually  favors  its  growth,  because  of  its  value  in 
filling  the  coffers  of  the  state. 

“An  active  and  successful  conflict  against  alcoholism,  which 
is  in  Russia  a social  evil  of  the  first  magnitude,  is  only  possible 
if  we  had  full  guarantees  of  liberty  for  our  persons  and  words, 
and  freedom  of  the  press  and  public  meetings. 

“It  is  only  under  these  conditions  that  it  would  be  possible 
to  spread  widely  among  the  people  instruction  as  to  the  injury 
caused  by  alcoholism,  and  the  real  causes  of  its  development.” 

There  was  plenty  of  trouble  waiting  for  the  doc- 
tors who  had  the  temerity  to  criticize  a government 
institution.  Dr.  Kelnyck  is  authority*  for  the  state- 
ment that  several  of  the  participating  physicians  were 
punished  by  being  transported  to  Siberia. 

The  year  1913  was  a most  notable  one  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  temperance  cause  in  Russia.  The  ele- 
ments of  reform  had  acquired  such  strength  among 
the  people  as  well  as  among  the  powers  in  Petrograd 
that  they  could,  without  fear  of  reprisals  from  the 
monopoly  authorities,  investigate  the  drink  troubles 
and  speak  and  write  freely.  It  was  noised  about,  for 
instance,  that  the  government  had  established  through- 
out the  nation  one  monopoly  vodka  shop  for  every  264 
versts  and  one  temperance  committee  for  every  1,722 
versts.  The  incongruity  of  that  situation,  from  a tem- 
perance standpoint,  was  apparent  even  to  a mujik. 
The  monopoly  was  openly  attacked  from  many  sources. 
In  a paper  read  before  the  International  Anti-Alcohol 
Congress  at  Milan,  Italy,  in  September,  1913,  Imperial 
Councillor  Nicholas  de  Cramer  showed  that,  in  the 
year  1906,  there  was  one  registered  drunkard  to  16,962 
inhabitants  in  Paris,  to  1,020  inhabitants  in  Vienna, 
329  inhabitants  in  Berlin,  and  to  every  25  inhabitants 
in  Petrograd.  Moreover,  in  the  same  paper,  Mr. 


171 


*Drink  Problem,  p.  255. 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


Cramer  directly  attacked  one  of  the  fundamentals  of 
the  monopoly  system,  that  of  its  temperance  pre- 
tentions. He  said : 

“It  is  a grave  error  if  one  thinks  that  amusements  and 
recreation  can  win  people  away  from  the  public  house,  and  that 
drunkenness  can  be  checked  by  theatrical  performances  and  park 
concerts,  for,  first,  elements  little  developed  spiritually  gain 
nothing  in  good  taste  from  a course  of  pleasures;  and  second, 
pleasures,  in  and  of  themselves,  are  able  neither  to  arouse  the 
will  nor  to  strengthen  it — the  will,  which  above  all  is  necessary 
for  the  weak,  characterless  man  in  his  fight  with  the  injurious 
habit” 

Not  only  did  individuals  investigate,  but  govern- 
ment bureaus  and  city  and  local  authorities  probed 
into  the  problem.  Official  investigations  showed  that 
in  the  village  schools  of  the  government  Saratov  79 
per  cent  of  the  boys  and  48^^  per  cent  of  the  girls 
habitually  drink  vodka.  In  the  government  of  Pskov 
the  percentage  was  83  and  68.  During  the  eighteen 
years  of  the  government  vodka  monopoly,  84,217 
deaths  were  registered  as  immediate  results  of  drunk- 
en bouts,  these  figures  being  far  below  the  real  ones, 
as  in  numerous  vast  districts  in  Russia  there  are 
neither  hospitals,  doctors  nor  any  other  authority  for 
registering  cases  of  death  or  their  causes. 

An  inquiry  on  the  subject  was  made  in  the  schools 
of  Ekaterinodar.  Out  of  5,721  pupils,  it  was  found 
that  63  per  cent  drank.  Of  these  2,500,  25  per  cent 
had  taken  to  drink  at  the  age  of  eight,  20  per  cent  at 
seven,  and  ii  per  cent  at  six,  while  many  of  them,  it 
is  shocking  to  state,  had  made  the  acquaintance  of 
alcohol  at  the  age  of  four. 

It  was  shown  that,  in  many  of  the  distilleries, 
school  children  are  employed  in  different  capacities. 
Very  often  their  pay  consists  partly  in  money  and 
partly  in  alcohol.  In  the  Krasninskj"  canton,  of  the 

172 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


Government  of  Smolensk,  a local  doctor  examined  the 
children  working  in  spirits  distilleries  and  found  that 
they  receive  quantities  of  alcohol  as  a part  of  their 
pay.  In  four  schools  of  the  canton,  the  children,  thus 
made  chronic  drunkards,  form  28  per  cent  of  the  total 
number  of  pupils.  In  Krapvensk,  where  the  school 
and  the  distillery  are  in  very  close  proximity,  the 
number  of  children  receiving  alcohol  for  their  work 
is  almost  55  per  cent  of  the  number  of  pupils  in  the 
school. 

When  the  discovery  was  communicated  to  the 
zemstvo  assembly,  its  members  decided  at  first  that 
the  matter  is  “outside  of  their  jurisdiction,”  and 
should  therefore  be  let  alone.  Finally,  however,  they 
drew  up  an  appeal  to  the  people,  pointing  out  the  in- 
jurious effects  of  alcohol  upon  the  child’s  organism. 
To  this  appeal  was  appended  the  opinion  of  the  as- 
sembly as  to  the  desirability  of  government  regulation 
for  the  punishment  of  persons  “who  give  alcoholic 
drinks  to  children.”  But  even  here  the  assembly  did 
not  deem  it  wise  to  come  out  directly  with  an  accusa- 
tion against  the  distillers,  who  were  guilty  of  the  re- 
volting crime. 

The  town  council  of  Moscow  made  an  official 
investigation  and  ascertained  that  of  thfe  adults  ad- 
dicted to  drink,  90  per  cent  learned  to  drink  while 
at  school.  It  further  established  the  fact  that  of 
the  18,134  schoolboys  of  the  Moscow  government  be- 
tween the  ages  of  8 and  13,  12,153,  or  66  per  cent, 
had  taken  to  drink.  It  found  that  out  of  10,404  school 
girls  of  the  same  ages,  4,733,  or  45  per  cent,  had  taken 
to  drink. 

With  such  appalling  facts  staring  the  people  in 
the  face,  results  for  the  better  began  to  appear  in 
rapid  succession.  People  and  local  authorities  all  over 

173 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


the  Empire  had  been  petitioning  Petrograd  for  the 
closing  of  the  government  vodka  shops.  True,  under 
the  existing  law,  the  local  authorities  had  author- 
ity to  close  up  private  shops,  but  they  had  no  such 
control  over  the  government  monopoly  establish- 
ments. There  was  nothing  to  be  gained,  therefore,  in 
forbidding  the  private  shops  which  paid  them  a reve- 
nue when  the  government  stores  continued,  which 
paid  them  no  revenue.  Under  the  old  orders  of  the 
Minister  of  Finance  (June  25,  1898),  applications  of 
local  authorities  for  the  closing  of  monopoly  shops 
were  to  be  refused,  except  in  unusual  cases  near  army 
barracks  or  near  great  industrial  plants  in  which 
the  superficial  government  or  influential  corporations 
might  be  more  or  less  directly  interested.  The  idea 
of  efficiency  was  beginning  to  take  root.  The  gov- 
ernment began  to  get  glimpses  of  the  advantage  of 
safeguarding  industry  and  government  manufacturing 
concerns  from  the  ravages  occasioned  by  the  monop- 
oly vodka. 

Under  the  new  orders  of  September  i,  1913,  the 
Minister  of  Finance  directed  the  superintendents  of 
excise  tax  districts  to  “satisfy  the  demands  of  rural 
communities  that  the  sale  of  alcoholic  drinks  be  for- 
bidden in  their  districts  and  that  the  vodka  stores 
already  existing  there  be  removed.”  Many  places  im- 
mediately began  acting  upon  the  suggestion.  Rostov- 
on-the-Don  entered  upon  the  prohibition  policy.  At 
Warsaw,  great  supplies  of  vodka  were  destroyed,  the 
fire  brigade  assisting  in  the  destruction.  Vilna,  Vlad- 
imir and  the  holy  city  of  Kiev  got  up  great  petitions 
for  dry  cities,  the  petitions  being  headed  by  the  mu- 
nicipal governments.  Ivanovo-Voznesensk  came  un- 
der the  prohibition  policy.  In  some  districts,  the 
governor  took  an  active  part  in  stirring  up  the  people 

174 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


along  temperance  lines.  Lieutenant  Governor  Bab- 
itch,  of  the  Kubansk  Territory  and  Commander  of  the 
Kubansk  Cossacks,*  issued  an  order, f dated  March 
27,  1913  (No.  121),  exhorting  the  people  to  abstain 
and  calling  upon  the  local  administrative  bodies  to 
use  the  “harshest”  measures  to  eliminate  the  evil. 

*“Cossack”  is  a Tartar  word  originally  meaning  “robber,” 
but  it  now  has  no  such  meaning.  It  is  applied  to  certain  Tartar 
tribes,  loyal  to  the  crown  and  who  are  great  fighters. 

fThe  text  of  this  “order”  read : 

ORDER  ISSUED  FOR  THE  KUBANSK  TERRITORY  BY 
THE  GOVERNOR  OF  THE  TERRITORY  AND  COM- 
MANDER OF  THE  KUBANSK  COSSACKS. 

Issued  March  27,  1913,  at  the  City  of  Ekaterinodar. — No.  121. 

The  data  gathered  by  the  Territorial  Administration  have 
established  the  fact  that  during  the  year  1912  the  monopoly 
vodka  stores,  situated  at  the  populated  points  of  the  Kubansk 
Territory,  sold  2,153,906  vedro  of  monopoly  vodka  (whisky). 
Taking  the  lowest  estimate  of  the  price  of  a vedro  of  vodka 
viz.,  8 r.  40  kop.,  we  find  that  during  the  one  year,  1912,  the 
population  of  the  territory  spent  for  the  monopoly  vodka  alone 
18,092,894  r.  40  kop.  Assuming  that  approximately  as  much  was 
spent  for  beer,  vodka,  liqueurs  and  other  imported  drinks,  we 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  during  one  year  the  population  of 
the  territory  spent  almost  40,000,000  r.  for  drink. 

The  figures  given  above  show  clearly  how  deeply  drunken- 
ness is  enrooted  in  the  population. 

Let  me  remind  you,  Cossacks  and  other  inhabitants  of  the 
territory  entrusted  to  me,  that  drunkenness  is  a terrible  evil. 
It  impairs  the  material  welfare  not  only  of  whole  communities, 
but  also  of  separate  families.  It  aids  the  development  of  crime 
and  other  offenses  against  public  morals,  of  horse-thieving, 
thefts,  murders,  riots  and  other  vices.  It  creates  family  dis- 
cords, aids  the  spreading  of  different  diseases,  and  what  is 
more  dreadful  than  anything  else,  it  leads  to  a gradual  degenera- 
tion of  the  population.  This  terrible  evil,  the  drunkenness,  is 
fostered  not  only  by  the  presence  of  the  institutions,  conducive 
to  its  development,  but  in  part  it  is  due  to  the  deep-rooted  and 
widely  established  habit  of  the  people  to  celebrate  by  drinking 
every  occasion,  whether  sad  or  joyous,  of  their  public  or  family 

175 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


It  was  in  this  historic  year  (1913)  that  the  vodka 
ration  in  the  Imperial  Navy  was  abolished,  and  soon 
after  the  sale  of  vodka  was  prohibited  in  the  restau- 
rants attached  to  all  government  works  and  institu- 
tions. The  sale  of  vodka  is  also  forbidden  in  all  places 
of  amusement,  including  theaters,  and  the  legal 
strength  of  all  vodka  sold  was  reduced  to  37  per  cent 
alcohol. 

life.  Still  another  false  opinion  has  taken  root  in  the  people, 
and  that  is,  that  whisky  strengthens  a man,  freshens  him,  stimu- 
lates him,  aids  him  in  convalescence,  etc.  But  you  must  have 
noticed  from  personal  experience  that  exactly  the  opposite  is 
true.  Moreover,  careful  scientific  investigations  have  shown  that 
the  action  of  alcohol  is  to  stimulate  the  organism  only  tempor- 
arily, and  that,  after  its  effects  pass  away,  even  greater  weakness 
sets  in. 

In  order  to  bring  about  and  to  strengthen  the  welfare  and 
the  well-being  of  the  people,  it  is  necessary  to  inaugurate  a most 
vigorous  campaign  against  this  drunkenness,  that  has  developed 
everywhere,  against  this  most  cruel  and  most  powerful  foe  of 
mankind,  that  drains  the  people  of  its  best  juices  and  poisons 
away  its  best  powers  and  tendencies. 

I invite  the  members  of  the  administrative  bodies  in  the 
populated  districts  and  all  well-intentioned  inhabitants  to  pro- 
mote among  the  people  more  rational  ideas  concerning  the  harm 
of  alcoholic  drinks,  both  by  the  personal  example  of  abstinence 
and  by  advice  and  instruction. 

On  my  part,  I shall  assist  in  every  way  permitted  me  by  the 
law,  all  undertakings  on  the  part  of  communities  or  private  indi- 
viduals, tending  to  decrease  drunkenness.  At  the  same  time, 
I enjoin  upon  all  members  of  the  administrative  bodies  to  take 
the  harshest  measures  for  the  elimination  of  unlicensed  sale  of 
alcoholic  drinks  and  to  lend  the  greatest  possible  aia  in  tu.s 
direction  to  the  different  temperance  societies  and  their  indi- 
vidual members. 

This  order  must  be  read  at  the  full  village,  hamlet  and 
stanitza  assemblies. 

Governor  of  the  Territory  and  Commander  of 
the  Kubansk  Cossacks. 

Lieutenant-General  Babitch. 

176 


THE  IMPERIAL  DUMA.  PETROGRAD 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


The  Holy  Synod  had  taken  up  the  combat  against 
alcohol  in  the  previous  year  (1912)  with  more  zeal 
than  it  had  ever  shown  before.  It  was  ordered  that 
August  29,  St.  John  the  Baptist’s  day,  be  set  apart  in 
all  the  churches  as  “temperance  day,”  on  which  special 
temperance  services  are  to  be  held,  processions  are  to 
march  through  the  streets  and  warnings  are  to  be 
given  to  the  people  against  drink.  During  the  year, 
the  Synod  called  a conference  of  all  practical  church 
workers  to  consider  the  temperance  question.  As  the 
Synod  shares  in  the  profits  of  the  alcohol  monopoly 
to  the  extent  of  about  14,000,000  roubles  per  year,  the 
conference,  at  the  start,  was  forbidden*  to  criticize 
that  institution.  The  conference,  nevertheless,  rec- 
ommended the  establishment  of  a permanent  “Rus- 
sian Brotherhood  of  Temperance,”  and  organizing  of 
monasteries  for  combating  alcoholism.  It  “recom- 
mended to  the  clergy  to  couple  its  care  for  temper- 
ance with  efforts  to  encourage  the  development  of  co- 
operative institutions  in  the  different  parishes.” 
Further,  “the  conference  deemed  it  desirable  to  peti- 
tion the  government  for  a subsidy  for  the  church  tem- 
perance organizations.”  On  November  i,  1912,  the 
Synod  approved  these  recommendations  and  decided 
to  put  to  actual  application  those  of  the  resolutions, 
the  execution  of  which  comes  within  the  scope  of  the 
Synod’s  jurisdiction,  and  to  recommend,  through  its 
Procurator,  the  other  resolutions  to  the  departments, 
within  whose  jurisdiction  they  happen  to  fall. 

Another  point  was  won  during  the  year  1913.  On 
the  previous  year,  the  management  of  the  Alexis  Pub- 
lic House  of  Moscow  (supra)  had  petitioned  the  Tsar 
for  a system  of  scientific  temperance  instruction  in  the 

*Vestnik  Tresvosti.  No.  225,  p.  17. 

177 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


public  schools.  This,  in  1913,  was  granted.  A system 
of  special  instruction  in  the  evils  of  alcohol  was  adopt- 
ed, the  use  of  which  is  obligatory  upon  all  educa- 
tional establishments  in  the  Empire,  and  the  Imperial 
Educational  Committee  entrusted  the  work  of  com- 
piling the  necessary  text  books  for  use  in  the  lower 
and  higher  schools  and  colleges  to  the  celebrated  Rus- 
sian physician,  Dr.  Mendelssohn,  of  Petrograd.* 

In  this  agitation,  one  of  the  principal  defenders 
of  the  monopoly  system  was  M.  Louis  Skarzynski,  a 
functionary  of  the  Russian  monopoly,  and  who  at- 
tended as  a delegate  from  the  Russian  government 
several  of  the  International  Anti-Alcohol  Congresses. 
In  1907  he  visited  the  temperance  gathering  at  Stock- 
holm, on  which  occasion  he  attacked  the  comparative 
statistics  of  insurance  companies  as  to  abstinence, 
using  for  his  purpose  the  figures  of  Isambart  Owen, 
who  allied  himself  with  the  brewers’  papers  for  thirty 
years  and  who  is  not  quoted  any  more,  even  by  the 
liquor  men  themselves. 

In  1909  M.  Skarzynski  visited  the  United  States 
to  gather  data  of  the  failure  of  prohibition  in  this 
country.  On  his  return  he  published  in  a statistical 
report  a caricature  on  prohibition  states.  He  attacked 
everything  in  the  way  of  reform  that  did  not  involve 
selling  liquor,  and  was  one  of  the  leading  spirits  of 
the  conference  held  at  Paris,  January  27,  1913,  to 
organize  what  became  known  as  the  International  Com- 
mittee for  the  Scientific  Study  of  the  Liquor  Question, 
and  which  has  headquarters  at  63  Rue  Galilee,  Paris. 
This  is  a concern  of  men  largely  identified  with  the 
manufacture  of  liquor  and  who  seek  to  find  a way  to 

’"Frances  E.  H.  Palmer,  autlior  Russian  Life  in  Town  and 
Country,  in  Alliance  News,  (Manchester,  Eng.)  July,  9,  1914. 

178 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


solve  the  drink  problem  without  interfering  with  the 
sale  of  drink. 

All  this  prepared  the  way  for  the  stirring  con- 
test in  the  Council  of  the  Empire  that  took  place 
early  in  1914.  The  contest  was  occasioned  by  the  in- 
troduction of  a bill  providing  for  excise  reforms.  This 
bill  has  an  interesting  history  back  of  it.  During  the 
first  sessions  of  the  Third  Duma,  Michael  Dimitrie- 
vich  Tschelishev,  a member  of  the  Duma,  introduced  a 
bill  providing  for  drink  reforms.  Among  other  reforms 
the  bill  provided  for  the  enlargement  of  the  smal- 
lest bottle  in  which  spirits  were  sold,  greater  privi- 
leges of  local  option,  limitation  of  the  time  of  sale  of 
intoxicants.  The  Duma  committee  that  had  the  bill 
under  consideration  added  several  new  features.  The 
amendments  proposed  by  the  committee  provided  for 
rewards  to  be  granted  for  the  discovery  of  illicit  traf- 
fic in  intoxicants,  for  prohibition  of  sale  of  drinks  on 
railroad  stations,  steamers,  etc.,  for  permission  to 
women  to  take  part  in  discussions  leading  to  a peti- 
tion for  local  prohibition,  for  the  removal  from  the 
label  of  the  vodka  bottles  of  the  Imperial  coat-of- 
arms  and  substitution  in  its  place  of  information  con- 
cerning the  harm  of  alcohol.  Most  of  these  amend- 
ments were  accepted  by  the  Duma. 

In  December,  1911,  the  bill  went  to  the  Council 
of  the  Empire  and  was  referred  to  a special  com- 
mittee, where  it  remained  for  two  years.  Its  intro- 
duction for  discussion  in  the  Council  on  January  10, 
1914,  was  the  occasion  for  the  contest.  The  Duma 
bill  left  the  Council  committee  so  changed  that  it  was 
scarcely  recognizable.  The  participation  of  women 
in  discussions  of  the  question  of  alcohol  was  not  al- 
lowed. The  rest  of  the  provisions,  e.  g.,  concerning 

179 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


the  size  of  bottles,  the  percentage  of  pure  alcohol,  etc., 
were  changed.* 

Still  the  bill  contained  a local  veto  feature  as  to 
government  monopoly  shops  as  well  as  to  private 
concerns.  This  proposal,  which  became  the  principal 
point  at  issue,  is  thus  stated  by  Nicholas  de  Cramer, 
a member  of  the  Council : 

“To  the  village  communities  the  right  is  given  to  pass 
ordinances  through  which  in  the  course  of  three  j'ears,  in  the 
territory  of  the  village  or  municipality,  every  sale  of  brandy, 
wine  or  beer,  or  of  brandy  and  beer  only,  will  be  forbidden. 
After  three  years  the  prohibition  of  sale  can  be  renewed  for 
another  three  years.  In  the  vote  of  the  community  members, 
the  wives  and  mothers  of  those  having  the  property  qualifica- 
tion take  part.  Force  of  law  upholds  the  enactment  through  a 
two-thirds  majority.  A special  magisterial  ratification  of  the 
enactment  is  not  necessary  and  the  same  can  only  be  attacked 
on  formal  grounds.  The  places  for  selling  drink  must  be  closed 
on  January  first  of  the  year  following  the  enactment.” 

The  fight  in  the  Council  lasted  for  several  weeks, 
occupying  in  all  fourteen  sessions.  During  the  heat 
of  the  controversy,  Petrograd  newspapers  published 
the  names  of  24  members  of  the  Council,  including 
the  president  of  the  body,  M.  G.  Akimov,  who  were 
actually  the  owners  of  estates  on  which  distilleries 
were  located.  The  total  amount  of  alcohol  produced 
at  the  distilleries  owned  either  by  members  of  the  Im- 
perial Council  themselves,  or  by  their  near  relations, 
is  1,389,376  vedro  (3,751,215  gal.)  In  addition,  it  was 
shown  that  numerous  other  members  of  the  Council 
were  financially  interested  in  many  other  ways  in 
perpetuating  the  monopoly. 

At  the  first  session  of  the  Council  at  which  the 
liquor  traffic  was  discussed  (February,  1914),  the 
special  committee  to  consider  the  alcohol  problem  re- 

*Reitch  (Petrograd),  Jan.  ir,  igi4. 

180 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


ported  a measure  falling  far  short  of  the  requirements 
of  the  temperance  people.  In  supporting  the  commit- 
tee proposal,  its  chairman,  M.  Zinoviev,  urged  that  it 
would  be  a serious  mistake  to  sacrifice  the  economic 
interests  of  the  country  by  the  suppression  of  alcohol. 
At  this  point,  the  famous  Sergius  Julevich  Witte  came 
into  the  debate.  His  furious  attack  upon  the  monop- 
oly attracted  international  attention,  largely  because 
of  the  fact  that  it  was  through  his  own  efforts,  as 
Minister  of  Finance,  that  the  monopoly  was  adopted 
20  years  before.  Responding  to  the  report  of  the 
committee,  Mr.  Witte  said,  in  part : 

“As  I have  already  had  occasion  to  remark,  the  Spirits 
Monopoly  was  introduced  as  a means  of  suppressing  the  then 
existing  inordinate  consumption  of  alcoholic  drinks  of  the  most 
harmful  kind.  In  the  eighties  of  the  last  century,  when,  just 
as  at  the  present  time,  Russia  was  under  the  destructive  influ- 
ence of  alcoholism,  different  committees,  among  them  the  so- 
called  ‘Drink  Parliament,’  were  organized  for  the  purpose  of 
finding  means  for  combating  the  great  national  evil. 

“These  committees  accomplished 
nothing,  and  it  was  then  decided  that 
the  crudest  instrument  which  can  be 
used  either  for  torturing  the  body 
and  spirit  of  a nation,  or  for  guard- 
ing the  people  from  human  weak- 
nesses, should  be  taken  by  the  gov- 
ernment from  the  hands  of  the 
owners  of  the  alcohol  capital.  It 
was  decided  to  introduce  a govern- 
ment spirits  monopoly. 

“The  new  system  was  begun  to 
be  introduced  in  1893,  s-nd  by  1903, 
when  I ceased  to  be  the  Minister  of 
Finance,  it  was  in  operation  prac- 
tically all  over  Russia. 

“From  the  fiscal  point  of  view, 
the  new  reform  was  thoroughly  satis- 
factory. . . . But  the  chief  object  of  the  reform  was  not  the 


3A  KyJIHCAMH  EOPbBU. 

tpuUoa  n Toe.  Oertrt  t Oopun  n OMMTMm.) 


Cartoon  from  Russian  pa- 
per illustrating  the  fight 
between  the  bill  and  the 
bottle. 


181 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


strengthening  of  the  alcohol  economy,  but  the  suppression  of  the 
great  national  evil,  the  alcoholism.  In  this  respect  the  reform 
has  thus  far  given  but  negative  results. 

“How  did  this  come  about?  During  the  period  of  the  in- 
troduction of  the  monopoly,  i.  e.,  prior  to  1904,  most  of  the 
official  and  non-official  reports  of  our  press  bore  witness  to 
the  fact  that  with  the  introduction  of  the  monopoly  drunkenness 
began  to  assume  a more  decent  character.  But  scarcely  had  the 
monopoly  been  introduced  when  the  war  broke  out,  followed  by 
the  internal  troubles.  The  picture  began  to  change  rapidly. 
The  real  object  of  the  reform,  the  suppression  of  alcoholism, 
was  pushed  to  the  rear,  and  the  object  of  the  monopoly  became 
the  pumping  of  the  people’s  money  into  the  government  treasurj-. 

“Together  with  the  Monopoly,  three  laws  were  introduced, 
calculated  to  combat  the  alcohol  evil.  One  referred  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  temperance  committees,  the  second  provided  for  a 
punishment  for  the  violation  of  the  Monopoly  law,  and  the  third 
provided  for  a punishment  for  drunkenness. 

“These  were  merely  test  laws,  imperfect  as  they  were.  . . . 
Even  to  the  present  day  these  laws  are  executed  very  perfunc- 
torily, merely  as  a matter  of  form. 

“During  the  war,  owing  to  a great  need  of  money,  a special 
stress  was  laid  upon  deriving  large  profits  from  the  Spirits 
Monopoly.  From  the  fiscal  point  of  view,  this  ‘stress’  gave 
excellent  results.  The  receipts  of  the  Monopoly  have  almost 
doubled  since  1904,  having  increased  by  500,000,000  roubles. 

“In  order  to  emphasize  the  meaning  of  this  sum,  a half- 
billion  roubles,  by  which  the  receipts  for  alcohol  increased  dur- 
ing the  last  decade,  suffice  it  to  say  that  the  total  present  budget 
of  the  Ministry  of  Public  Education  is  only  about  160,000,000 
roubles,  i.  e.,  less  than  one-third  of  this  increase. 

“.  . . . Moreover,  while  the  receipts  from  the  sale  of 
whisky  have  increased  by  almost  a half-billion,  the  microscopic 
means,  devoted  to  the  maintenance  of  the  temperance  commit- 
tees, 4,000,000  roubles  at  the  beginning,  have  not  only  not  in- 
creased during  the  last  decade,  correspondingly  with  the  increase 
in  the  receipts  of  the  treasury,  but,  on  the  contrary,  have  dimin 
ished  to  2,500,000  roubles. 

“For  political  reasons  many  reading-rooms,  tea-rooms,  and 
even  several  committees  themselves,  were  abolished.  The 
prosecution  of  the  clandestine  alcohol  traffic  has  been  conducted 
very  inefficiently,  owing  to  the  insufficiency  of  means.  As  a 

182 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


consequence,  this  traffic  has  developed  enormously.  Drunkards, 
either  already  drunk  or  drinking  right  in  the  street,  form  an 
ordinary  occurrence  of  our  city  life.  They  serve  as  an  object 
for  indifference  on  the  part  of  the  police,  and  for  sport  on  the 
part  of  the  children.  There  are  no  special  quarters  for  ine- 
briates at  the  police  stations  even  of  our  capital  cities. 

“Finally  came  the  year  1907.  Officially,  ‘peace’  was  restored 
in  the  country.  During  the  seven  years  that  have  gone  by  since 
then,  many  changes  have  taken  place  in  the  wide  world.  Two 
European  kingdoms  have  been  formed,  the  great  Chinese  Em- 
pire has  been  transformed  into  a republic ; blood  has  flown  free- 
ly in  the  awakened  Balkans;  England  and  America  have  passed 
legislation  changing  fundamentally  their  financial  and  economic 
systems;  the  Panama  Canal  has  been  opened,  etc.,  etc. 

“But  what  have  we  done  for  the  suppression  of  alcoholism, 
the  great  evil  that  corrupts  and  destroys  the  Russian  people? 

“Absolutely  nothing.  As  a result  of  our  utter  lack  of  activ- 
ity in  the  direction  of  combating  the  evil  of  alcoholism,  we  are 
confronted  by  a new  evil,  the  so-called  ‘Hooliganism.’  Hooligan- 
ism is  a legitimate  child  of  alcoholism.  We  are  already  begin- 
ning to  frame  laws  against  this  new  monster,  but  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  only  sensible  way  of  decreasing  Hooliganism  is  to 
cast  aside  our  indifference  to  the  nation-wide  epidemic  of  drunk- 
enness that  holds  our  country  in  its  grip.” 

Count  Witte  then  discussed  the  relation  of  the 
monopoly  receipts  to  the  Russian  budget,  showing 
that  the  money  thus  received  forms  26  per  cent  of  the 
total  revenue.  He  proved,  by  official  statistics,  that 
the  profits  of  the  transaction  not  only  covered  the 
enormous  deficit  produced  by  the  war,  but  had  also 
already  built  up  a surplus  of  almost  500,000,000 
roubles.  He  continued : 

“Even  if  we  take  into  consideration  the  increase  of  popula- 
tion since  1904,  and  assume  that,  owing  to  a vigorous  activity 
on  the  part  of  the  government  and  the  different  societies,  the 
increase  of  the  expenditure  for  drink  would  not  exceed  that  of 
the  population,  then  at  the  present  time,  instead  of  a surplus 
of  over  a half-billion,  we  would  have  a deficit  of  over  700,- 
000,000  roubles. 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


“From  the  data  that  I have  presented  to  you,  you  can  sec 
what  part  the  profits  of  the  Spirits  Monopoly  play  in  our  fiscal 
economy.  This,  it  seems  to  me,  explains  the  phenomenon  that 
fiery  speeches  are  made  against  the  great  national  evil  of  alco- 
holism at  any  time  except  during  the  discussion  of  the  govern- 
ment budget. 

“But  if  the  past  of  alcoholism  appears  dark  and  gloomy,  the 
future  of  the  great  evil  appears  even  darker  to  me.” 

Here  Count  Witte  entered  into  another  financial 
discussion,  showing  how  the  constant  growth  of  the 
international  armaments  necessitates  a rapid  increase 
of  the  war  budgets  and  how  this  fact  alone  may  re- 
duce to  nothing  the  “sincerest”  desire  to  suppress  the 
great  evil  of  alcoholism.  He  concluded  as  follows; 

“In  view  of  the  above,  and  as  matters  stand  at  present,  if 
you  really  wish  to  combat  the  great  national  evil  of  alcoholism, 
and  if  you  wish  to  pass  measures  not  for  the  monetary  self- 
gratification, or  as  a matter  of  evasion,  you  should  adopt  the 
following  measures,  which  I propose  to  you,  after  having  given 
the  subject  careful  and  elaborate  consideration: 

“First  of  all  it  is  necessary  to  disarm  the  tempter,  the 
Mephistopheles  of  our  fiscal  budget  repertory,  to  cut  down  the 
receipts  from  alcohol,  so  that  there  would  be  no  temptation  to 
increase  them  for  the  purpose  of  balancing  the  budget  and 
building  up  the  surplus. 

“Let  us  say  that  the  total  gross  receipts  from  the  sale  of 
alcohol  should  not  exceed  545,000,000  roubles,  the  figure  at  which 
they  stood  in  1904,  immediately  after  the  introduction  of  the 
Monopoly.  Increase  this  sum  to  correspond  to  the  growth  of 
our  population  during  this  decade  to,  say,  670,000,000,  and,  finally, 
fix  the  receipts  from  this  source  at  700,000,000  roubles.  Any 
surplus,  over  and  above  this  sum,  should  not  enter  into  the 
government  revenues,  but  should  be  devoted  to  the  organizations 
established  for  combating  the  evil  of  alcoholism. 

“It  may  be  expected  that  in  time  there  would  be  no  such 
surpluses,  provided  that,  in  the  making  of  our  budget,  we  would 
not  be  interested  in  a constant  increase  of  liquor  profits  at  the 
expense  of  corrupting  the  people  by  means  of  alcohol. 

“I  know  that  it  may  be  objected  that  the  fixing  of  the  liquor 
receipts  would  be  an  extraordinary  measure.  That  is  true,  but 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


surely  extraordinary  evils  necessitate  extraordinary  measures. 

“A  government  that  realizes  its  duty  before  the  people  is 
not  unwilling  to  adopt  extraordinary  measures  in  economic  and 
financial  matters.  The  Reichstag  did  not  hesitate  before  levying 
an  enormous  military  tax  upon  the  whole  of  Germany.  The 
British  and  the  American  parliaments  did  not  hesitate  before 
overturning  the  whole  century-old  economic-financial  policy  for 
the  good  of  the  people.  These  measures  are  ultra-extraordinary, 
iconoclastic  from  the  point  of  view  of  finance  book  doctrinar- 
ianism. 

“And  if,  in  disarming  Mephistohpeles,  the  revenues  will  de- 
crease, cover  them  by  normal  means,  by  additional  tax  levies, 
and  by  open  and  not  secret  government  loans,  for  which  pur- 
pose you  must  extract  from  the  depths  of  the  Taurida  Palace 
the  bills  providing  for  new  taxes,  which  have  been  reposing  there 
for  the  last  eight  years. 

“Then  make  proper  appropriations  for  a prosecution  of  the 
clandestine  traffic  in  alcoholic  drinks,  for  a suppression  of  street 
alcoholism,  for  the  prosecution  of  the  violators  of  the  law. 
Use  millions  of  roubles,  and  not  a few  paltry  kopeks,  for  the 
maintenance  of  institutions,  devoted  to  these  ends,  with  their 
necessary  personnel,  miserably  small  at  present;  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  temperance  committees. 

“Only  by  adopting  such  measures  can  you  decrease  drunk- 
enness, or  at  least  arrest  its  further  growth. 

“As  for  the  bill  under  consideration  at  present,  I must  say 
that,  under  the  existing  conditions,  I do  not  believe  in  its 
effectiveness. 

“Even  if,  after  the  long  trip  which  the  bill  has  before  it, 
it  will  emerge  without  undergoing  very  great  injuries,  it  will 
finally,  unless  followed  by  other  extraordinary  measures,  be 
classed  among  the  laws  which  may  be  filed  in  a library  and 
labeled  ‘An  Attempt  With  Inefficient  Means.’  ’’ 

The  principal  reply  to  Witte  was  that  of  Finance 
Minister  Kokovtsov,  who  defended  his  monopoly  ad- 
ministration, and  who  was  supported  in  his  forensic 
attempt  by  several  distillers.  But  the  war  of  words 
centered  around  the  two  giants,  Witte  and  Kokov- 
tsov. The  temperance  people  failed  in  their  complete 
ambitions,  but  an  excise  reform  measure,  with  some 

185 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


provisions  for  local  option,  was  adopted  by  the  Coun- 
cil in  the  course  of  the  fourteen  sessions  devoted  to 
the  bill,  and  the  fragmentary  provisions  were  sent  to 
the  State  Chancellory  for  final  codification.  On  Feb- 
ruary 26  the  codified  bill  was  sent  to  the  Duma  for 
reconsideration.*  While  Witte  failed  in  his  main 
contention,  yet  in  the  masterly  attack  that  he  made 
upon  the  monopoly,  he  wrote  the  political  death  war- 
rant of  its  sponsor,  M.  Kokovtsov,  and  gave  the  mo- 
nopoly itself  a stab  in  the  vitals  from  which  it  never 
recovered. 

Another  factor  of  trouble  arose  at  this  period  to 
plague  the  monopoly,  in  the  form  of  a “man  of  the 
people.”  Michael  Dimitrievich  Tschelishev,  also  a 
member  of  the  Duma.  Tschelishev  was  born  of  poor 
parents  in  a small  village  in  the  Volga  country.  He 
was  self-educated.  Later  he  removed  to  Samara, 
where  he  now  lives.  He  engaged  in  trade  and  became 
wealthy,  but  he  is  so  intensely  Russian  that,  wherever 
he  goes,  he  wears  the  national  Russian  garb,  a blue 
blouse,  with  tasseled  girdle  and  baggy,  black  breeches 
tucked  away  in  top  boots.  Tschelishev  first  became 
interested  in  the  temperance  question  through  an 
anti-alcohol  book  given  him  by  a mujik.  After 
Tschelishev  became  an  alderman  of  Samara,  one  of 
his  tenants,  while  drunk,  killed  his  wife.  Thereupon 
Tschelishev  began  his  great  fight  against  the  vodka 
which  caused  such  things.  I will  allow  him  to  relate 
the  essence  of  the  first  part  of  his  contest  in  his  own 
words : 

“On  the  supposition  that  the  government  was  selling  vodka 
for  the  revenue,  I calculated  the  revenue  received  from  its  con- 
sumption in  Samara.  I then  introduced  a bill  in  the  city  coun- 
cil providing  that  the  city  give  this  sum  of  money  to  the  imperial 

*“ Reitch”  (Petrograd),  February  27,  1914. 

186 


THE  GREAT  FIGHT  FOR  REFORMS 


treasury,  requesting  at  the  same  time  that  the  sale  of  vodka  be 
prohibited.  This  bill  passed  and  the  money  was  appropriated. 
It  was  offered  to  the  government,  but  the  government  promptly 
refused  it. 

“It  then  dawned  upon  me  that  Russian  bureaucracy  did  not 
want  the  people  to  become  sober,  for  the  reason  that  it  was 
easier  to  rule  autocratically  a drunken  mob  than  a sober  people. 

“This  was  seven  years  ago.  Later  I was  elected  mayor  of 
Samara,  capital  of  the  Volga  district,  a district  with  over  a 
quarter  of  a million  inhabitants.  Subsequently  I was  elected  to 
the  Duma  on  an  anti-vodka  platform.  In  the  Duma  I proposed 
a bill  permitting  the  inhabitants  of  any  town  to  close  the  local 
vodka  shops,  and  providing  also  that  every  bottle  of  vodka 
should  bear  a label  with  the  word  poison.  At  my  request  the 
wording  of  this  label,  in  which  the  evils  of  vodka  were  set  forth, 
was  done  by  the  late  Count  Leo  Tolstoi.  This  bill  passed  the 
Duma  and  went  to  the  Imperial  Council,  where  it  was  amended 
and  finally  tabled.”* 

In  his  efforts  to  get  the  Duma  to  adopt  his 
“poison”  law,  his  principal  opponent  was  M.  Kokov- 
stov,  the  Minister  of  Finance,  who  objected  against 
any  interference  with  drink  on  fiscal  grounds.  The  very 
character  of  this  argument  only  intensified  the  ardor 
of  Deputy  Tschelishev  to  overthrow  the  vodka  monop- 
oly itself.  How  this  was  finally  accomplished  is 
shown  in  the  concluding  chapter. 

*-The  New  York  Times  Current  History  of  the  War;  Vol.  L, 
No.  5,  p.  832. 


187 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


lHROUGHOUT  the  various  de- 
bates in  the  Duma  during  1913, 
M.  Kokovtsov,  Minister  of  Fi- 
nance, was  the  center  of  attack. 
He  was  accused  of  manipulating  the 
vodka  monopoly  for  purely  fiscal  pur- 
poses and  ignoring  the  philanthropic 
side  of  the  institution.  In  his  defense 
he  provided  additional  ammunition  for 
the  temperance  people  by  urging  only 
the  financial  needs  of  the  country. 
When  any  attempt  was  made  to  devise 
measures  for  the  diminution  of  drunk- 
enness, Kokovtsov  would  oppose,  al- 
ways for  fiscal  reasons.  In  pressing  this 
claim  to  such  an  extreme,  the  Finance 
Minister  dug  his  own  political  grave. 
Nothing  is  more  popular  in  Russia  than  schemes  of 
philanthropy  and  social  betterment.  And  when  Ko- 
kovtsov uniformly  opposed  such  movements  for  finan- 
cial reasons,  he  placed  himself  politically  on  the 
wrong  side  of  the  debate. 

The  stirring  events  of  1913  had  developed  a pow- 
erful combination  against  the  vodka  system.  The  re- 
lentless agitation  of  Tschelishev,  the  idol  of  the  com- 
mon people  of  the  entire  Volga  country,  was  vigorously 
supported  by  Imperial  Councillor  de  Cramer,  a power 
in  the  Baltic  provinces.  The  temperance  teachings  of 
Tolstoi  have  filtered  into  the  remotest  corners  of 

189 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


Russia.  Two  of  the  most  powerful  members  of  the 
Imperial  Family  itself,  the  Prince  of  Oldenburg  and 
Grand  Duke  Constantine,  both  uncles  of  the  Tsar, 
were  at  the  head  of  the  two  great  temperance  move- 
ments in  the  Empire.  Constantine  had  established  his 
city  of  Pavlovsk  on  prohibition  principles  only  five 
miles  from  the  home  of  the  Tsar,  and  his  efforts  were, 
in  part,  thwarted  by  the  monopoly  authorities  estab- 
lishing a couple  speakeasies,  one  in  the  railway  sta- 
tion and  one  just  outside  of  the  Pavlovsk  city  limits. 
And,  to  add  to  the  complexity  of  the  situation,  the 
town  council  of  Moscow  and  numerous  other  admin- 
istrative bodies  had  conducted  official  investigations 
into  the  drink  question,  and  the  results  thereof  uni- 
formly much  more  than  confirmed  the  most  radical 
statements  that  had  been  made  by  the  temperance  ad- 
vocates anywhere.  Kokovtsov’s  only  answer  to  all 
this  was  that  interference  with  the  situation  would 
affect  the  national  finances.  The  great  newspapers  of 
Petrograd  and  Moscow  were  openly  and  boldly  criti- 
cizing the  monopoly,  printing  cartoons  and  galling 
accounts  of  the  “drunken  statistics”  provided  by  the 
vodka  authorities.  Verily,  the  elements  of  a storm 
were  brewing,  and  conditions  were  ripe  for  some  kind 
of  a crash,  the  true  Slavic  way  of  doing  things. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Tsar  himself  had  been  con- 
ducting, in  his  own  way,  some  personal  investigations. 
He  went  to  Moscow  and  other  provinces,  where  he 
observed  conditions  with  his  own  eyes.  Once  con- 
vinced, the  Tsar  acted  swiftly  and  wdth  true  Russian 
vigor.  On  January  30,  1914,  the  first  great  blow  fell. 
The  Tsar  sent  to  M.  Kokovtsov,  Minister  of  Finance, 
a polite  note  thanking  him  for  his  services  and  ex- 
pressing regret  that  he  was  no  longer  able  to  continue 
in  the  service  as  Minister.  That  is  the  Russian  way 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


of  dismissing  a high  official.  On  the  very  same  day, 
he  summoned  Peter  L.  Bark,  a man  of  Jewish  extrac- 
tion, and  appointed  him  as  the  successor  of  Kokovtsov. 
And  in  a rescript*  dated  the  same  day,  the  Tsar  out- 
lined an  altogether  new  policy  as  to  the  management 
of  the  vodka  monopoly.  The  full  text  of  the  rescript 
was  as  follows : 

“The  journey  through  several  governments  of  the  Great  Rus- 
sia, which  I undertook  last  year  with  God’s  aid,  afforded  me  an 
opportunity  to  study  directly  the  vital  needs  of  my  people.  With 
great  pleasure  did  I behold  the  brilliant  manifestations  of  the 
great  creative  powers  of  my  people;  but,  at  the  same  time,  with 
profoundest  grief,  I saw  sorrowful  pictures  of  the  people’s  help- 
lessness, of  family  poverty,  of  broken-up  households  and  all  those 
inevitable  consequences  of  insobriety  and  often  of  toil,  that  is 
denied  in  times  of  difficulty  the  monetary  aid  of  a well-regulated 
and  easily  accessible  credit  system. 

“Since  then,  constantly  reflecting  upon,  and  verifying,  my 
impressions  and  information,  I have  come  to  a firm  conclusion 
that  there  lies  upon  me  a duty,  imposed  by  God  and  by  Russia,  to 
introduce  without  delay  fundamental  changes  into  the  manage- 
ment of  the  financial  and  economic  problems  that  confront  the 
country’s  government — changes  that  would  work  for  the  good  of 
my  beloved  people. 

“We  cannot  make  our  fiscal  prosperity  dependent  upon  the 
destruction  of  the  spiritual  and  economic  powers  of  many  of  my 
subjects,  and  therefore  it  is  necessary  to  direct  our  financial 
policy  towards  seeking  government  revenues  from  the  unexhaust- 
ed sources  of  the  country’s  wealth  and  from  the  creative  toil  of 
the  people,  to  seek  constantly,  while  preserving  wise  economy,  to 
increase  the  productive  powers  of  the  country  and  to  take  care 
of  the  satisfaction  of  the  people’s  needs. 

“Such  must  be  the  ends  of  the  desired  changes. 

“I  am  firmly  convinced  that  they  must  succeed  and  that  they 
are  absolutely  necessary  for  the  good  of  my  people,  especially 
since  both  the  Duma  and  the  Imperial  Council  have  turned  their 
attention  to  these  needs  of  the  people  by  revising  our  alcohol  laws. 

"NICHOLAS.” 

’*‘A  ukase  corresponds  very  closely  in  its  character  to  an 
American  proclamation.  A rescript  is  the  form  of  instructions  to 
the  Ministers  and  corresponds,  in  effect,  to  a statute  law. 

191 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


Then,  as  soon  as  the  formalities  could  be  com- 
pleted, the  Minister  of  the  Interior,  N.  A.  Maklakov, 
sent  out  instructions  to  the  Governors  of  the  provinces 
directing  that  the  new  order  of  things  be  carried  out. 
The  text  of  the  Minister’s  instructions  read : 

“His  Imperial  Majesty,  in  a rescript  given  on  January  30, 
1914,  to  the  Minister  of  Finance,  has  chosen  to  point  out  that  the 
prosperity  of  the  Russian  Treasury  must  be  placed  in  dependence, 
not  on  the  devastation  of  the  spiritual  and  economic  powers  of 
the  people,  but  on  an  increase  of  its  material  prosperity  and  of 
the  productive  powers  of  the  people,  which  should  not  be  under- 
mined by  intemperance. 

“In  order  to  carry  out  the  will  expressed  in  His  Majesty’s 
rescript  the  police  must  take  measures  to  limit  the  abuse  of  alco- 
holic drink  and  to  aid  all  persons  and  institutions  fighting  against 
drunkenness  by  all  means  permitted  by  the  law. 

“In  issuing  this  letter  I feel  certain  that  the  police,  realizing 
its  duty  and  the  great  importance  of  this  matter,  which  has  re- 
ceived the  gracious  attention  of  the  Czar,  will  zealously  attend 
to  the  execution  of  all  the  government  measures  which  will  fol- 
low a programme  dictated  by  His  Imperial  Majesty.  I am  certain 
that  the  police  will  not  allow  in  this  matter  any  technical  friction. 
The  whole  department  must  work  in  unison.  A union  of  all  the 
servants  of  the  Emperor  for  the  realization  of  this  holy  purpose 
will  insure  its  success.”* 

In  these  sudden  and  drastic  movements,  the  Ko- 
kovtsov idea  of  operating  the  monopoly  as  a purely 
fiscal  agency  to  collect  revenue  was  completely  over- 
thrown. In  the  future  it  was  to  be  operated  along 
lines  that  should  discourage  rather  than  encourage 
drink,  in  so  far  as  this  could  be  accomplished  while 
operating  the  monopoly  at  all.  The  temperance  lead- 
ers did  not,  at  this  time,  ask  for  the  immediate  aboli- 
tion of  the  vodka  monopoly.  They  merely  urged  that 
it  should  be  operated  in  such  a manner  that  the  mini- 
mum of  evil  should  come  out  of  the  traffic  and  that  it 

*Sovremennoye  Slovo  (Petrograd),  March,  1914. 

192 


NEVSKY  PROSPECT.  PETROGRAD,  THE  GOSTINNY  DVOR  ON  THE  LEFT 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


should  not  be  used  to  exploit  to  the  utmost  the  mis- 
eries and  sufferings  of  the  people.  De  Cramer  repeat- 
edly stated  that  if  liquor  was  to  be  sold  at  all,  it  could 
be  sold  by  the  government  with  the  least  harm,  “pro- 
vided the  government  really  wished  for  that  result.” 
This  reform  in  the  policy  of  the  government  was, 
therefore,  accomplished  more  than  six  months  before 
the  European  war  broke  out  or  was  even  thought  of. 

And  those  who  bore  the  heat  and  burden  of  the 
contest  are  not  forgotten.  On  January  22  five  mem- 
bers of  the  Duma,  L.  P.  Zalit,  Prince  S.  P.  Mansirev, 
I.  M.  Rambot,  J.  U.  Goldman  and  U.  M.  Oras,  sent 
a congratulatory  telegram  to  Nicholas  de  Cramer, 
member  of  the  Imperial  Council,  saying:  “With  a 
feeling  of  deep  satisfaction  we  have  watched  your 
efforts  in  the  Council  of  the  Empire  directed  against 
one  of  the  greatest  evils  of  mankind,  alcoholism.  In 
full  accord  with  you,  we  greet  in  your  person  a valiant 
militant,  to  whom  the  prosperity  of  the  people  is 
dearer  than  the  narrow  material  interests  of  the  nobles 
of  the  Baltic  provinces.  Even  if  your  efforts  were 
not  successful,  it  was  surely  by  no  fault  of  yours.  One 
cannot  possibly  convince  all  those  who  prize  most 
their  own  material  interests.”* 

The  reversal  of  the  policy  of  the  government  as 
to  the  operations  of  the  monopoly  brought  quick  and 
radical  results.  During  the  first  six  months  of  1914, 
the  receipts  from  the  vodka  monopoly,  as  compared 
with  the  first  six  months  of  1913,  decreased  by  2,500,- 
000  roubles,  showing  that  the  previous  rapid  increase 
in  consumption  of  the  beverage  had  received  a radical 
check. f Again,  the  policy  of  the  government  in  grant- 

*Russkoye  Slovo  (Moscow),  Jan.  23,  1915 

fStatement  of  Finance  Minister  Bark  in  the  Duma,  reported 
in  Novae  Vremia  (Petrograd),  July  27,  1914. 

193 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


ing  petitions  for  the  closing  of  vodka  shops  had  a re- 
markable effect.  During  the  five  months,  from  Febru- 
ary I,  1914,  to  July  I,  1914,  more  than  800  petitions 
for  local  prohibition  were  “satisfied.”  During  this 
period,  1,149  liquor  shops  were  closed  by  prohibition, 
of  which  447  were  government  monopoly  shops  and 
702  were  private  ones.*  The  reform  was  well  under 
way  before  the  outbreak  of  hostilities.  The  govern- 
ment, under  Peter  L.  Bark  as  Minister  of  Finance,  had 
begun  permitting  local  option,  which  had  been  refused 
by  the  Imperial  Council  in  its  consideration  of  the 
excise  reform  bill  of  only  a few  weeks  before. 

When  the  storm  of  war  broke  over  Europe  in  the 
latter  days  of  July,  there  came  the  first  steps  looking 
toward  the  wiping  out  of  the  drink  traffic  in  Russia. 
Simultaneously  with  the  orders  for  the  general  mob- 
ilization of  the  Russian  troops  went  the  order  to 
close,  immediately,  all  vodka,  wine  and  beer  shops  in 
the  Empire,  an  exception  being  made  in  the  case  of 
first-class  restaurants.  This  order  was  promulgated 
by  Grand  Duke  Nicholas,  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
Russian  forces,  and  was  purely  a mobilization  meas- 
ure to  prevent  disturbances  similar  to  those  that  ac- 
companied the  mobilization  for  the  Japanese  war  in 
1904.  The  order  was  effective  only  until  complete 
mobilization  should  be  accomplished. 

The  results  of  this  order  were  surprising.  Rus- 
sia accomplished  her  mobilization  in  less  than  one- 
half  the  time  it  was  expected  to  take.  The  rapid  mob- 
ilization of  the  Russian  forces,  made  possible  by  the 
closing  of  all  drinking  places,  was  the  first  disappoint- 
ment to  German  calculations.  Under  the  leadership 
of  the  irrepressible  Tschelishev,  deputations  were  or- 

*Novoe  Vremia,  July  15,  1914. 

194 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


ganized  to  present  petitions  to  the  Tsar  asking  that 
the  prohibition  of  Grand  Duke  Nicholas  be  continued 
until  the  war  shall  be  over.  The  beneficent  results  of 
the  closed  policy  during  the  mobilization  were  so  ap- 
parent that  quick  results  were  obtained.  The  Tsar, 
on  August  22,  ordered  that  the  existing  prohibition  of 
the  sale  of  vodka  and  spirits  be  continued  until  the 
close  of  the  war.  This  order  did  not  apply  to  beer, 
the  prohibition  of  which  was  only  for  the  period  of 
mobilization. 

On  August  25  the  Council  of  Ministers  adopted  a 
rule  proposed  by  the  Minister  of  Finance  to  continue 
the  prohibition  of  beer  and  porter  until  October  i. 

On  August  27  the  Admiralty  Council  decided  to 
abolish  the  rule  of  giving  sailors  a cup  of  vodka  on 
certain  occasions  and  substituted  money  therefor. 

On  September  27  the  Tsar  confirmed  the  decision 
of  the  Council  of  Ministers  to  the  effect  that  on  re- 
ceipt of  petitions  of  village  administrative  bodies  and 
city  councils,  government  vodka  shops  and  also  pri- 
vate liquor  shops  of  all  sorts  should  be  closed,  not 
only  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  petitioners,  but  also 
within  a limit  of  300  yards  of  the  boundaries  thereof.* 
All  shops,  under  such  petitions,  were  to  close  within 
three  months,  and  fees  for  the  unexpired  portion  of 
the  license  term  were  to  be  returned  pro  rata.  It  was 
also  ordered  that,  in  the  future,  no  license  be  granted 
for  more  than  one  year  and  that  all  existing  licenses 
cease  to  be  in  force  on  December  31,  1914.  The  effect 
of  these  orders  was  that  the  sale  of  vodka  was  pro- 
hibited during  the  continuation  of  the  war  and  that, 
after  October  i,  1914,  the  sale  of  beer  and  wine  was 

*This  order  was  published  under  date  of  October  10  in  Bul- 
letin of  Laivs,  No.  275.  Series  No.  i. 

19s 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


left  to  the  decision  of  the  local  authorities,  under  a 
sort  of  local  option  system. 

On  October  13,  1914,  the  Tsar  approved  of  two 
elaborations  of  the  former  orders,  both  of  which  were 
promulgated  on  October  20  over  the  signature  of 
Peter  L.  Bark,  Minister  of  Finance.  The  first  of  these 
orders.  No.  2373,  reads  as  follows; 

“The  decision  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  confirmed  by  His 
Imperial  Majesty  on  the  13th  day  of  the  current  month  of  Octo- 
ber, grants  the  Minister  of  Finance  a right  to  permit,  in  the  cities 
and  towns,  beginning  with  November  i,  1914,  upon  conditions  pre- 
scribed by  him,  the  sale  of  beer  and  porter,  which  should  not  be 
consumed  on  the  premises,  providing  that  in  the  localities  which 
are  under  military  or  siege  law  permission  for  the  sale  of  beer 
should  be  given  only  by  consent  of  the  proper  military  authorities. 

“In  view  of  the  above  decision  of  the  Council  of  Ministers, 
confirmed  by  His  Majesty,  I allow  the  superintendents  of  the 
Excise  Departments,  upon  obtaining  the  consent  of  the  Governors 
and  the  Mayors,  and  in  the  localities  which  are  under  military  or 
siege  law  of  the  proper  military  authorities,  to  permit  in  the 
cities  and  towns,  beginning  with  November  i,  the  sale  of  beer 
and  porter  from  wholesale  and  retail  stores,  on  the  condition  that 
the  number  of  such  places  of  sale  should  not  exceed  in  each  city 
10  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  such  places  of  sale,  and  that 
the  drinks  should  not  be  consumed  on  the  premises.  Moreover, 
the  sale  of  beer  and  porter  for  consumption  outside  of  the  place 
of  sale  may  be  permitted  in  certain  ‘Rhine  Cellars,’  but  only  in 
case,  as  a result  of  local  conditions,  the  granting  of  such  per- 
mission is  found  advisable.  At  the  same  time  I request  the  su- 
perintendent of  the  Excise  Department  that  the  sale  of  beer  and 
porter  should  not  be  permitted  in  places  of  sale  in  which  there 
is  any  suspicion  of  their  right  to  sell  the  above-named  drinks,  and 
also  not  to  permit  the  sale  of  these  drinks  in  such  parts  of  the 
city  in  which  the  resumption  of  the  sale  of  beer  and  porter  is 
not  desirable  for  the  introduction  of  temperance,  due  to  the 
character  of  the  population. 

“In  the  case  of  petitions  presented  by  public  institutions  re- 
questing a total  prohibition  of  the  sale  of  alcoholic  drinks,  the 
sale  of  beer  and  porter  should  not  be  permitted. 

“In  order  to  introduce  a sufficient  control  over  the  proper 
conditions  of  the  sale  of  these  drinks  I request  the  superintend- 

196 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


ent  of  the  Excise  Department  to  take  proper  measures  to  insti- 
tute a constant  watch  by  the  officials  of  their  departments  over 
the  separate  places  of  sale  of  beer  and  porter.  In  the  case  of 
any  violations  of  the  rules  of  such  sale  the  superintendents  of 
the  Excise  Departments  are  instructed  to  report  this  immediately 
to  the  Governors  and  Mayors  and,  aside  from  prosecuting  the 
offenders,  to  request  the  proper  civil  or  military  authorities  to 
order  such  places  of  sale  of  beer  and  porter  closed,  as  provided 
for  by  Article  594  of  the  Excise  Statute  or  by  the  Rules  of  the 
Extraordinary  Law  or  of  the  Military  Law. 

“This  is  issued  to  the  superintendents  of  the  Excise  Depart- 
ments for  their  guidance.” 

The  second  order,  No.  2374,  reads  : 

“The  decision  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  confirmed  by  His 
Imperial  Majesty  on  the  13th  day  of  the  current  month  of  Octo- 
ber, reads  as  follows;  Until  the  end  of  the  war  all  petitions  of 
public  institutions  requesting  a complete  prohibition  of  sale  of 
alcoholic  drinks  should  be  honored,  and  such  sale  in  the  localities 
covered  by  the  petitions  should  be  prohibited  in  all  places  of  sale, 
without  exception.  If  the  petition  comes  from  a village  or  volost 
community,  or  zemstvo  councils  or  city  councils,  such  orders 
should  be  issued  by  the  Governors  and  the  Mayors.  Petitions 
coming  from  other  institutions  should  be  examined  by  the  Min- 
ister of  the  Interior  and,  if  found  correct,  proper  orders  should 
be  issued  by  him.  The  superintendents  of  the  Excise  Department 
are  informed  by  this  decision  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  con- 
firmed by  His  Imperial  Majesty,  for  their  information  and  guid- 
ance.”* 

So  far  as  the  military  side  of  the  situation  was 
concerned,  the  opinions  and  recommendations  of 
Grand  Duke  Nicholas,  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
Russian  forces,  had  great  weight  because  on  him 
rested  responsibilities  of  supreme  moment.  It  was  he 
who  caused  the  original  prohibition  order  during 
mobilization  to  be  issued,  and  it  was  largely  on  his 
recommendation  that  the  prohibition  of  vodka  was 
continued  throughout  the  period  of  the  war.  So  far 

*Both  orders  were  published  in  full  in  Sovremennoye  Slovo 
(Petrograd),  Oct.  22,  1914. 


197 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


as  the  districts  involved  in  military  operations  were 
concerned,  Nicholas  not  only  enforced  the  anti-vodka 
order  with  great  vigor,  but  even  prohibited  the  traffic 
in  wine  and  beer.  Absolute  prohibition  of  the  traffic 
in  intoxicants  of  every  sort  prevails  throughout  the 
districts  in  which  the  Russian  armies  operate.*  The 
success  of  the  prohibition  mobilization  was  such  a 
vast  improvement  over  any  other  mobilization  ever 
attempted  in  Russian  history  that  the  lesson  was  too 
apparent  to  be  ignored.  This  was  the  universal  testi- 
mony of  all  the  newspaper  correspondents.  “None  of 
the  reservists  or  of  the  civilians  were  intoxicated.  The 
soldiers,  the  Cossacks,  the  sailors,  and  even  the  hooli- 

*London  Times,  Nov.  i6,  1914. 


Clzajjaaie  yronasinroro. 


Cartoon  from  Monthly  Magazine  (Petrograd),  Sept.,  1914,  show- 
ing philanthropists  fishing  victims  out  of  the  great  flood  of 
Government  liquor. 


198 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


gans,  were  all  as  sober  as  judges.  To  sell  a drop  of 
spirits  entailed  a fine  of  3,000  roubles.”* 

Then  came  an  agitation  looking  to  the  permanent 
prohibition  of  the  vodka  traffic.  This  movement  was 
led  by  such  men  as  Deputy  Tschelishev,  of  the  Duma, 
and  Nicholas  de  Cramer,  of  the  Imperial  Council. 
Tschelishev  personally  interviewed  the  members  of 
the  Ministry.  The  Minister  of  Communications,  Ruch- 
lov,  said  that  he  was  entirely  in  favor  of  total  prohi- 
bition. The  Minister  of  War,  General  Souchomlinov, 
declared  that  alcoholic  drinks  will  never  be  allowed  in 
the  country  as  long  as  the  war  lasts.  The  Minister  of 
Agriculture,  Krivoshein,  also  declared  himself  in  favor 
of  total  prohibition.  When  the  question  of  the  sale 
of  grape  wines  was  discussed,  Krivoshein  remarked ; 
“There  is  no  provision  in  our  law  that  would  deter- 
mine the  composition  of  the  grape  wines  in  use.  The 
strength  of  the  wines  sold  in  different  parts  of  the 
country  is  entirely  arbitrary,  and  measures  must  be 
taken  against  this.”  Count  Witte,  while  expressing 
his  gratification  at  the  closing  of  the  government 
vodka  shops,  pointed  out  the  fact  that  it  is  necessary 
to  wage  a determined  struggle  against  the  clandestine 
sale  of  alcoholic  drinks,  which  sale  should  be  regarded 
as  a crime  of  the  highest  order.f 

Soon  came  the  death  warrant  of  the  vodka  monop- 
oly. About  the  ist  of  October  the  All-Russian  Work- 
ing Union  of  Christians,  headed  by  its  president. 
Grand  Duke  Constantine,  uncle  of  the  Tsar,  petitioned 
the  Emperor  to  make  permanent  the  abolition  of  the 
traffic  in  vodka.  The  reply  came  back  from  Tsarskoe 
Selo  in  the  following  historic  telegram : 

*Francis  McCullough,  article  on  Teetotal  Russia,  in  London 
Daily  News,  Sept.  18,  1914. 

^Viestnik  Tresvosti  (Petrograd),  Nov.,  1914,  p.  10. 

199 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


“Petrograd.  To  the  Grand  Duke  Constantine  Constantinovich. 
I thank  the  Russian  Christian  Labor  Temperance  Organization. 
I have  already  decided  to  abolish  forever  the  government  sale  of 
whisky  in  Russia.  “NICHOLAS.”* 

This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  complete 
prohibition  of  the  vodka  traffic  in  Russia  is  to  be  made 
permanent,  but  it  does  mean  that  the  government 
traffic  in  the  same  is  at  an  end.  The  death  warrant  of 
the  monopoly  has  been  executed. 

The  agitation  leading  up  to  this  telegram  of  the 
Tsar  was  of  a most  remarkable  character.  Confer- 
ences of  representatives  of  the  administration,  the 
church  and  city  zemstvos,  held  in  twenty-two  govern- 
ments under  the  chairmanship  of  the  respective  gov- 
ernors, reported  that  the  results  of  the  prohibition 
were  most  satisfactory.  Of  these  22  conferences,  17 
urged  that  all  alcoholic  drinks,  including  wine  and 
beer,  should  be  prohibited.  Four  voted  in  favor  of 
permission  to  sell  grape  wine,  but  not  a single  con- 
ference voted  in  favor  of  continuing  the  sale  of  beer.f 
The  Holy  Synod  received  petitions  from  17  bishops 
asking  that  body  to  use  its  influence  in  favor  of  con- 
tinued prohibition.  The  Bishop  of  Riga  sent  a peti- 
tion to  the  Minister  of  Finance  in  the  name  of  the 
various  temperance  organizations  of  that  place  re- 
questing him  not  to  allow  the  beer  shops  to  be  re- 
opened. Workmen  in  numerous  Petrograd  factories 
petitioned  the  Minister  of  Finance  for  total  prohibi- 
tion. A large  group  of  Moscow  manufacturers  re- 
fused to  petition  for  the  resumption  of  the  sale  of 
liquors.  Five  hundred  employees  of  Shrader’s  factory 
in  Petrograd  sent  the  Common  Council  an  address 
thanking  that  body  for  its  efforts  for  sobriety.  The 

*Russkoye  Slovo  (Moscow),  Oct  7,  1914. 

^Viestnik  Tresvosti  (Petrograd),  Dec.,  1914,  p.  18. 


200 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


University  of  Kiev,  one  of  the  greatest  institutions  of 
learning  in  Russia,  sent  a petition  urging  permanent 
prohibition  of  alcoholic  beverages.  In  six  cities, 
Sevak,  Tula,  Dankow,  Smolensk,  Kniagin  and  Mos- 
cow, the  members  of  the  juries  serving  at  circuit 
court  sessions  sent  in  petitions  for  permanent  prohi- 
bition of  vodka.  In  the  case  of  Moscow,  the  jury  was 
made  up  of  peasants,  whose  appeal  in  part  read : 

“It  was  with  a feeling  of  profound  sorrow  that  we  saw  that 
the  chief  cause  of  the  majority  of  crimes  was  alcohol.  It  was 
hard,  indeed,  to  punish  our  own  brethren,  the  peasants,  who  were 
brought  to  committing  the  crimes  by  drink.  Let  our  voice  be 
joined  to  the  universal  call  for  temperance,  that  only  means  of 
regenerating  the  prosperity  and  the  spiritual  might  of  the  people.” 

The  appeal  concluded  as  follows : 

“Drunkenness  is  worse  than  the  present  war.  Conditions 
may  improve  after  the  war,  but  drunkenness  can  bring  nothing 
but  general  misfortunes.”* 

The  effect  of  the  Emperor’s  telegram  to  Constan- 
tine forever  discontinuing  the  government  sale  of 
vodka  was  electric.  Telegrams  and  messages  of  ap- 
preciation came  from  everywhere,  from  the  highest  to 
the  lowest.  One  of  the  most  striking  was  a telegram 
from  the  City  Council  of  Moscow,  a city  that  had 
something  like  9,000  liquor  shops  of  various  kinds. 
The  text  of  the  telegram  read : 

“The  City  Council  of  Moscow  lays  before  the  feet  of  Your 
Imperial  Majesty  the  feelings  of  exquisite  joy  experienced  by 
the  representatives  of  the  population  of  the  ancient  capital  upon 
receiving  the  intelligence  to  the  effect  that  you  have  decided  to 
discontinue  forever  the  government  sale  of  liquor. 

“The  city  of  Moscow  expects  that  from  now  on  the  struggle 
against  alcohol,  the  ancient  foe  of  Russian  life,  will  be  carried  on 
as  a sacred  duty  by  all  the  authorities  and  institutions  that  guard 
the  life  and  the  peaceful  activities  of  the  people,  and  that  tem- 

*Russkoye  Slovo  (Moscow),  Oct.  12,  1914. 


201 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


perance  will  henceforth  be  the  basis  of  our  government  and  of 
our  national  life. 

“The  city  of  Moscow  is  cheerfully  hopeful  that  the  execution 
of  Your  Will,  O Emperor,  will  not  neglect  to  bar  all  paths 
through  v/hich  alcohol  may  again  come  into  general  use  and  con- 
tinue to  poison  the  national  organism,  as  it  had  been  doing 
hitherto.”* 

The  great  cities  were  quick  to  act  upon  their 
powers  to  curtail  or  prohibit  the  traffic  in  beer  and 
wine.  In  this,  Petrograd  led  the  way.  At  first,  the 
City  Council  prohibited  these  beverages  in  all  except 
forty-nine  first-class  restaurants,  but  shortly  made  the 
prohibition  complete.  On  December  28,  the  Mayor  of 
the  city.  Prince  A.  N.  Obolensky,  issued  an  ordert  en- 
forcing the  complete  prohibition  policy  decreed  by 
the  City  Council.  Within  twenty  days  after  the  power 
had  been  conferred  upon  them,  the  city  government  of 
the  largest  city  in  Russia,  comprising  1,700,000  people, 

*Viestnik  Tresvosti,  Dec.,  1914,  p.  15. 

fThe  text  of  Prince  Obolensky’s  proclamation  reads : 

“In  view  of  a petition  of  the  Petrograd  City  Council,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  decision  of  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers,  con- 
firmed by  His  Majesty  on  October  13,  1914,  and  also  with  the 
circular  order  No.  2385,  issued  by  the  Minister  of  Finance  on 
November  5,  the  district  chiefs  of  police  are  instructed  to  stop 
immediately  all  sale,  whether  for  consumption  on  the  premises 
or  at  home,  of  all  spirits,  wine,  whiskies  and  all  other  alcoholic 
drinks,  not  excluding  grape  wines,  champagnes,  and  beer,  in 
all  places  where  such  sale  is  still  going  on,  i.  e.,  in  first-class 
and  club  restaurants,  and  in  all  wine  shops  that  have  no  bars. 
Care  must  be  taken  that  no  clandestine  trade  in  above-named 
drinks  takes  place. 

“The  sale  of  alcohol  and  the  monopoly  wine  (vodka)  for 
chemical,  scientific,  school,  pharmacetic,  cosmetic,  etc.,  purposes 
may  be  made  at  the  government  wine-shops  by  order  of  the  Chief 
of  the  Excise  Bureau,  and,  in  certain  particular  cases,  by  order 
of  the  Minister  of  Finance.  The  sale  for  the  same  purposes  of 
other  alcoholic  drinks  may  take  place  in  private  places  of  sale 
upon  the  presentation  by  the  district  chiefs  of  police  upon  their 


202 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


had  enacted  total  prohibition  of  all  intoxicating  liquors. 
And  the  spirit  of  the  Russian  people  in  this  matrer  is 
exemplified  in  the  attitude  of  Prince  Obolensky,  Mayor 
of  Petrograd,  who  issued  the  prohibition  proclama- 
tion. Prince  Obolensky  himself  is  a distiller  and  was 
formerly  Associate  Minister  of  Finance.  To  a news- 
paper reporter,*  he  said,  regarding  the  course  that  the 
distillers  should  pursue : “Serious  as  the  matter  may 
be  for  us,  if  drunkenness  can  be  eradicated,  we  dis- 
tillers are  in  duty  bound  to  make  every  possible  sac- 
rifice for  it.”  What  a different  spirit  from  that  usu- 
ally manifested  by  the  average  American  or  British 
distiller.  The  Petrograd  Council  passed  the  measure 
by  a vote  of  56  to  39. 

On  December  22  the  Moscow  City  Council  adopt- 
ed complete  prohibition  of  all  intoxicants,  including 
wine  and  beer,  by  a vote  of  three  to  one.f  Other 

*Reitch  (Petrograd),  Sept.  12,  1914. 

•fReitch,  Dec.  23,  1914. 

own  strictly  personal  responsibility.  Such  places  of  sale  shall  be 
required  to  have  special  certificates,  issued  by  the  Chief  of  the 
Excise  Bureau,  in  accordance  with  the  circular  order,  No.  2385, 
issued  by  the  Minister  of  Finance  on  November  5,  1915. 

“The  places  where  the  prohibited  drinks  are  kept,  in  the 
establishments  that  have  the  above  certificates,  must  be  always 
kept  closed,  with  locked  doors  and  windows,  and  unlighted  at 
night.  They  may  be  opened  only  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
sale  in  accordance  with  the  above  regulations. 

“The  location  of  the  office  or  the  private  dwelling  of  the 
owner,  where  such  sale  may  take  place,  may  be  indicated  upon 
the  doors  of  the  establishments  or  on  the  signs. 

“The  places  of  sale,  that  do  not  hold  a certificate  for  special 
sale,  must  be  closed  and  locked,  and  entrance  into  them  may  take 
place  only  by  the  order  of  the  Excise  Inspection. 

“The  present  orders  must  be  executed  immediately  upon  their 
publication  throughout  the  entire  territory  of  the  city. 

“The  Mayor  of  Petrograd, 
“Major-General  Prince  A.  N.  Obolensky.” 

203 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


cities  of  the  Empire  began  immediately  adopting  the 
total  prohibition  plan.  Tambov,  Viatka,  Ekaterine- 
burg,  Ufa,  Minsk,  Astrakhan,  Samara,  Ekaterinoslav 
and  many  other  towns  and  cities  both  in  Russia  and 
Siberia  quickly  adopted  the  prohibition  of  wine  and 
beer.  Up  to  November  i,  1914,  52  cities  and  towns 
had  petitioned  for  the  total  and  permanent  abolition 
of  alcoholic  drinks  and  15  petitioned  for  prohibition 
until  the  end  of  the  war.* 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  in  prohibiting 
these  lighter  beverages,  these  cities  lose  almost  as 
much  revenue  as  does  the  Imperial  Government  in 
abolishing  the  vodka  monopoly.  These  municipalities 
have,  heretofore,  derived  a large  part  of  their  income 
from  licenses  to  sell  beer  and  wine  in  traktirs,  wine 
cellars,  restaurants  and  hotels.  The  City  Council  of 
Petrograd  estimates  that  it  would  lose  500,000  roubles 
per  year  on  beer  and  wine  licenses  alone,  and  the  ag- 
gregate loss  of  all  the  Russian  cities  will  be  very 
great,  but  the  determination  to  eradicate  drunkenness 
is  so  strong  that  it  overrides  all  considerations  of  this 
sort.  The  people  are  confident  that  they  will  find  no 
difficulty  in  rearranging  the  municipal  as  well  as  the 
national  finances. 

The  beneficent  results  of  the  total  prohibition 
policy  became  at  once  strikingly  apparent.  These 
evidences  and  the  satisfaction  of  the  people  were  well 
expressed  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Budget  Committee 
of  the  Duma.  In  presenting  the  Russian  Budget  for 
1915,  he  said: 

“In  this  connection  I would  like  to  call  3'our  attention  to  the 
extremely  important  questions  of  temperance.  Our  legislative 
bodies  made  attempts  to  solve  this  question  by  all  sorts  of  com- 
promises. It  was  proposed  to  diminish  something  here,  change 

*Russkoye  Slovo  (Moscow),  Nov.  7,  1914. 


204 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


something  there.  But  the  question  was  decided  differently,  radi- 
cally, in  a straightforward  way.  One  is  almost  tempted  to  say 
that  it  was  decided  in  a military  way,  by  a frontal  attack.  This 
measure  merits  the  enthusiastic  approval  of  all,  even  those  who 
drank  before.  But  together  with  enthusiasm  there  come  from  all 
parts  of  Russia  expressions  of  fear,  lest  the  great  cause  of  tem- 
perance be  not  brought  to  an  end  very  soon.  It  seems  impos- 
sible that  such  a good  movement  will  not  deteriorate.  But  I am 
confident  that  the  proper  governmental  department  will  give  us 
ample  assurances  that  temperance  is  a fact,  which  must  be  taken 
as  such,  and  that  drunkenness  and  the  sale  of  alcoholic  drinks, 
whether  by  the  government,  or  by  private  enterprise,  is  a part  of 
the  unretrievable  past. 

“We  accept  temperance  as  a great  measure,  accept  it  with 
glad  and  grateful  hearts.  And  we  are  confident  that  new  condi- 
tions of  life  will  soon  arise,  in  which  a new  type  of  man  will 
spring  into  being,  man,  strong  physically  and  spiritually,  who  will 
lead  Russia  along  the  road  of  national  independence  from  all  in- 
fluences, in  whatever  departments  of  life  they  be  asserted,  in 
whatever  spheres  of  society  they  have  gained  a footing.”* 

Summarizing  the  results  of  the  dry  policy,  Mr. 
Ivan  Zhilkin,  writing  in  a leading  Russian  review,  said  : 

“All  Russia  is  filled  with  enthusiasm  and  gratitude.  As  if 
by  the  waving  of  a magic  wand,  drunkenness,  debauchery,  wild 
cries,  disputing  and  fighting  have  ceased  in  the  streets  of  both 
villages  and  towns.  Factories  and  workshops  are  filling  their 
orders  with  promptness  and  accuracy.  In  households  long  ac- 
customed to  poverty,  strife,  drunken  quarrels  and  blows,  there 
are  now  peace  and  quiet.  The  peasant  families  are  even  making 
pecuniary  savings,  which,  although  small,  are  as  welcome  as  they 
are  unexpected.  The  very  face  of  Russia,  long  disfigured  by 
alcoholic  excess,  seems  to  have  been  transformed  and  ennobled.”! 

Writing  from  Tambov  under  date  of  October  28,  a 
newspaper  correspondent  thus  summarizes  the  changes 
in  that  section : 

“Three  months  have  passed  since  the  sale  of  vodka  ceased, 
and  it  is  now  possible  to  estimate  the  extent  of  the  beneficent 

*Russkoye  Slovo  (N.  Y.),  March  15,  1915. 

^Viestnik  Europa  (Petrograd),  Sept.,  1914,  p.  339. 


205 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


results  that  have  followed  Prohibition.  The  villages  of  this 
province,  according  to  the  reports  of  the  peasants,  have  become 
so  changed  as  to  be  unrecognizable.  Fights,  robberies  and  fires, 
they  say,  have  almost  ceased.  But,  without  placing  too  much 
reliance  upon  these  statements,  we  may  show  the  results  of  Pro- 
hibition by  objective  facts.  According  to  the  records  of  the 
procurator’s  office  of  the  Tambov  district,  the  average  number 
of  criminal  cases  in  the  month  of  August  for  the  year  igii- 
12-13  was  515.  In  August,  1914  [after  the  closing  of  the  vodka 
shops],  the  number  was  only  324.  This  is  the  lowest  criminal 
rate  on  record.  Information  collected  and  compiled  by  the  Fire 
Insurance  Board  of  the  same  district  shows  that  the  average 
number  of  accidental  or  incendiary  fires  in  August  and  Septem- 
ber for  the  five  years  immediately  preceding  1914  was  960.  The 
number  in  the  same  months  of  this  year  was  only  630,  which  is 
also  the  lowest  ever  recorded.  The  chief  of  the  Fire  Insurance 
Board  adds  that  this  decrease  in  the  number  of  fires  represents 
a saving  of  500,000  roubles  in  sixty  days,  or  at  the  rate  of 
3,000,000  roubles  a year.  In  the  Moshansk  and  Tambov  districts, 
where  the  number  of  fires  has  always  been  great,  the  results 
are  still  more  surprising.  During  the  months  of  the  autumnal 
holidays  last  year  the  number  of  fires  in  the  peasant  villages  of 
these  districts  was  148.  In  the  same  months  this  year  it  fell  to 
65.  The  police  of  the  ‘bazaar  precinct’  in  Tambov  report  that 
the  monthly  average  of  arrests  has  fallen  from  300  in  previous 
years  to  70  in  1914.  The  police  inspector  of  another  Tambov 
precinct  says  that  his  station-house  contains  so  few  prisoners 
that  he  is  thinking  of  offering  it  to  the  sanitary  authorities  for 
a hospital.  The  President  of  the  Tambov  Zemstvo  Board,  who 
has  just  returned  from  an  extensive  trip  through  the  rural  dis- 
tricts, says  that,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  peasant  villages  in 
this  time  of  war  show  unmistakable  evidences  of  prosperit}'. 
The  mujiks  are  better  dressed,  their  taxes  are  paid  more  prompt- 
ly, and  trade  in  the  village  fairs  has  become  more  active.”* 

George  Kennan,  writing  in  The  Outlook  for  De- 
cember 16,  1914,  summarizes  items  gleaned  from  cur- 
rent Russian  newspapers  in  these  words : 

A correspondent  of  the  Russkoye  Slovo,  telegraphing  from 
Viatka,  says ; “The  closing  of  the  government  dispensaries  in 
this  city  has  been  followed  by  a marked  decrease  in  the  number 

*Reitch  (Petrograd),  Oct.  30,  1914. 

206 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


of  robberies.  Hooliganism  has  almost  disappeared,  and  the 
police  lockups,  always  filled  on  bazaar  days  with  drunken  men, 
are  now  empty.  According  to  a member  of  the  provincial 
zemstvo,  the  peasant  villages  are  completely  transformed. 
Drunkenness,  fighting  and  disorder,  so  noticeable  on  holidays 
and  fair  days,  have  ceased.” 

A correspondent  of  the  same  review  in  Simbirsk  says:  “The 
suspension  of  the  vodka  traffic  has  diminished  crime  in  this  city 
by  50  per  cent,  and  hooliganism  by  90  per  cent.  The  same  re- 
sults are  reported  from  a whole  series  of  peasant  villages  in 
this  province.” 

From  Orel  the  report  is : “Prohibition  has  reduced  crime 
here,  as  compared  with  previous  months,  by  80  per  cent.  The 
court  rooms  and  police  stations  are  empty.” 

In  Voronezh  the  police  state  that  “in  the  first  half  of  July, 
when  the  vodka  dispensaries  were  open,  there  were  in  this  city 
twenty-seven  murders  or  other  serious  crimes.  In  the  first  half 
of  August,  when  the  vodka  shops  were  closed,  there  were  only 
eight.” 

The  detective  police  of  Ekaterinoslav  report  that  “crimes 
attributable  to  drunkenness  have  wholly  ceased.  Since  the  be- 
ginning of  the  mobilization  there  has  not  been  a single  case  of 
murder,  robbery,  assault  or  hooliganism,  although  prior  to  that 
time  there  were  more  than  a hundred  every  month.” 

In  Ekaterinodar,  according  to  the  police,  “crime  has  de- 
creased by  90  per  cent,  hooliganism  has  disappeared,  and  the 
town  is  absolutely  quiet.” 

In  Saratov  “the  monthly  average  of  crimes  has  fallen  from 
130  to  60.  The  asylum  for  alcoholics  is  empty.  The  river  steve- 
dores have  put  on  new  clothes  and  are  sending  money  home. 
Attempts  at  suicide  have  ceased.” 

In  Yaroslav  “the  registers  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  show 
that  between  the  31st  of  July  and  the  28th  of  August  there  was 
brought  before  the  magistrates  only  one  case.  In  the  same 
length  of  time  before  the  suspension  of  the  sale  of  vodka  the 
number  of  cases  often  exceeded  200.” 

A correspondent  in  Kostroma  writes:  “The  number  of 
crimes  and  offenses  in  this  city  in  the  fortnight  prior  to  the 
suspension  of  the  vodka  traffic  was  about  300.  In  the  first  half 
of  August  there  were  only  8.” 

And  then  he  adds  that,  “It  would  not  be  difficult 
to  fill  many  pages  of  The  Outlook  with  reports  like 


207 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


these,  from  zemstvos,  to-wn  councils,  peasant  com- 
munes, charitable  societies,  police  officials  and  justices 
of  the  peace  in  all  parts  of  the  Empire ; but  the  above 
quotations  are  sufficient,  perhaps,  to  show  how  com- 
plete is  the  economic  and  sociologic  transformation 
that  Russia  has  undergone  since  the  suspension  of  the 
liquor  traffic.” 

Writing  again  in  The  Outlook  for  February  17, 
Mr.  Kennan,  after  detailing  some  of  the  difficulties 
attending  the  complete  enforcement  of  prohibition  in 
the  large  cities,  thus  describes  the  outcome  in  the 
rural  districts : 

“In  the  country,  however — that  is,  in  the  peasant  villages — 
the  state  of  affairs  seems  to  be  quite  different.  There  the  drink- 
ing of  intoxicants  has  almost  wholly  ceased,  partly  because  it  is 
more  difficult  to  get  denatured  alcohol  and  60  per  cent  wine  in 
the  country  than  it  is  in  the  towns,  and  partly  because  the  peas- 
ants regard  the  war  very  seriously  and  have  cleansed  themselves 
of  the  sin  of  drunkenness,  just  as  a mujik  who  is  about  to  die 
puts  on  a clean,  white  shirt.  Sobriety,  in  the  stress  of  peril 
and  under  the  shadow  of  death,  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  a 
moral  and  religious  duty.  Even  the  peasant  women  talk  more 
about  prohibition  than  they  do  about  the  war,  and  peasant  chil- 
dren ask  their  mothers.  Will  papa  always  be  as  he  is  now?” 

Regarding  the  manner  of  the  local  authorities  in 
accepting  the  new  situation,  Mr.  Kennan  says : 

“Since  my  previous  article  on  this  subject  was  written 
scores  of  district  zemstvos  (popular  assemblies  or  local  legisla- 
tures) have  been  in  session,  and  have  not  only  adopted  resolu- 
tions favoring  absolute  prohibition  forever,  but  have  declared 
war  on  all  ‘moonshiners’  and  all  substitutes  for  vodka  of  every 
possible  kind.  The  most  energetic  supporters  of  these  prohibi- 
tory resolutions  are  the  peasants,  while  in  the  ranks  of  the  com- 
promisers are  to  be  found,  for  the  most  part,  only  the  officials, 
the  landed  proprietors,  and  the  representatives  of  the  petty 
nobility.” 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  Kennan  states : 

“Evidences  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  prohibition  continue 

208 


AT  THE  LEFT  IS  M.  PETER  BARK,  RUSSIAN  MINISTER  OF  FINANCE,  EXPLAINING  TO  M.  RIBOT 
(french  minister),  in  the  center,  AND  DAVID  LLOYD-GEORGE  (BRITISH  MINISTER),  ON  THE 
RIGHT,  THAT  THE  ABOLITION  OF  THE  VODKA  MONOPOLY  WILL  NOT  CRIPPLE  RUSSIAN  FINANCES. 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


to  accumulate.  The  efficiency  of  labor  and  the  savings  of  labor 
have  increased  more  than  50  per  cent;  the  peasant  population  is 
better  dressed  and  better  fed  than  it  has  ever  been  before ; and 
crime,  disorder,  fires  and  ‘hooliganism’  have  everywhere  de- 
creased. In  the  communal  skhods  (a  Russian  variety  of  the 
New  England  town  meeting)  the  sober  and  intelligent  peasants 
have  acquired  for  the  first  time  complete  supremacy,  and  are 
bringing  about  a great  change  for  the  better  in  village  adminis- 
tration. Under  the  old  regime  the  skhods  were  largely  given 
up  to  vodka  drinking  and  quarreling,  and  the  better  class  of 
peasants  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  them.  Now  the  best 
men  take  part  in  them,  village  affairs  are  soberly  and  intelli- 
gently discussed,  and  appropriations  of  village  money  are  made 
for  co-operative  societies,  reading-rooms,  and  movies.  At  one 
of  these  skhods  a village  peasant,  speaking  on  the  subject  of 
prohibition,  said : ‘Formerly  we  had  the  rule  of  “fists,”  shouters, 
bargain-wetters,  and  drunkards;  but  since  the  village  became 
sober  these  people  have  lost  their  power.  Now  we  elect  to 
office  men  who  can  read  and  write,  sober  men,  and  thrifty  men 
— most  of  them  members  of  co-operative  societies.’  ” 

On  January  13,  1915,  a conference  took  place  un- 
der the  chairmanship  of  the  Mayor  of  Petrograd, 
Prince  A.  N.  Obolensky,  at  which,  at  the  instance  of 
the  Petrograd  bread  dealers,  the  question  of  increas- 
ing the  cost  of  flour,  bread  and  macaroni  was  dis- 
cussed. It  was  pointed  out  that  the  price  of  flour,  and 
consequently  of  bread,  had  been  raised  primarily  by 
the  fact  that  as  a result  of  the  prohibition  of  alcoholic 
drinks,  the  prosperity  of  the  people  has  increased. 
Especially  in  the  grain-producing  governments  along 
the  Volga,  the  farmers  were  refraining  from  selling 
their  supplies  of  grain,  as  they  expect  still  higher 
prices. 

Deputy  Tschelishev  expressed  satisfaction  at  the 
showing  after  one  month’s  experience,  in  these  words : 

“In  spite  of  the  general  depression  caused  by  the  war,  the 
paralysis  of  business,  the  closing  of  factories,  and  the  interrup- 
tion of  railroad  traffic,  the  people  felt  no  depression.  Savings 


209 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


banks  showed  an  increase  in  deposits  over  the  preceding  month 
and  over  the  corresponding  month  of  the  preceding  year.  At  the 
same  time  there  was  a boom  in  the  sale  of  meats,  groceries, 
clothing,  dry  goods  and  house  furnishings.  The  30,000,000  rou- 
bles a day  that  had  been  paid  for  vodka  were  now  being  spent 
for  the  necessities  of  life. 

“The  average  working  week  increased  from  three  and  four 
days  to  six,  the  numerous  holidays  of  the  drinker  having  been 
eliminated.  The  working-day  also  became  longer,  and  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  worker  was  perhaps  doubled.  Women  and  chil- 
dren, who  seldom  were  without  marks  showing  the  physical 
violence  of  the  husband  and  father,  suddenly  found  themselves 
in  an  undreamed-of  paradise.  There  were  no  blows,  no  insults, 
and  no  rough  treatment  There  was  bread  on  the  table,  milk 
for  the  babies,  and  a fire  in  the  kitchen.”* 

In  its  issue  dated  January  6,  1915,  the  Russkoye 
Slovo,  of  New  York,  the  largest  daily  Russian  news- 
paper in  America,  comments  on  the  results  editorially; 

“Temperance  has  made  Russian  labor  much  more  productive. 
As  a general  thing  Russian  labor  is  much  less  productive  than 
either  the  European  or  the  American.  But  the  mere  fact  of  the 
absence  of  drink  has  increased  the  productivity  of  a Russian 
laborer  in  some  industries  by  as  much  as  35  per  cent. 

“The  following  facts  are  given  by  a Petrograd  labor  period- 
ical. In  the  furniture  shops  of  the  Great  and  Small  Ochta  the 
amount  of  furniture  turned  out  after  the  coming  of  temperance 
increased  by  20-25  per  cent.  The  brush  shops  turned  out  10  per 
cent  more  product. 

“The  Moscow  papers  note  the  fact  that  despite  the  difficul- 
ties of  war  time  and  the  scarcity  of  work,  the  laboring  families 
buy  more  clothes  and  home  utensils  than  before  the  war.  The 
workmen  themselves  explain  this  by  the  fact  that  the  money  that 
was  formerly  expended  for  drink  now  goes  toward  elevating 
what  is  called  in  the  United  States  the  ‘standard  of  living.’  ” 

On  February  12,  M.  Kharitonov,  comptroller  of 
the  Russian  treasury,  speaking  before  the  duma  bud- 
get committee,  declared  that  owing  to  the  great  in- 
crease in  the  national  savings,  due  to  Prohibition,  the 

*New  York  Times’  Current  History  of  the  War,  Feb.,  1915: 

p.  833- 


210 


THE  OVERTHROW  OE  THE  MONOPOLY 


extraordinary  outlay  occasioned  by  the  war  had  caus- 
ed no  suffering'  as  yet  in  Russia. 

As  proof  of  this,  Mr.  Kharitonov  said  the  national 
savings  in  December,  1913,  which  amounted  to  700,000 
roubles  ($350,000),  had  increased  to  29,100,000  roubles 
($14,550,000),  in  December,  1914.  He  added  that  the 
total  savings  for  1913  amounted  to  34,000,000  roubles 
($17,000,000),  as  compared  with  84,000,000  roubles 
($42,000,000),  for  1914. 

Continuing  his  discussion.  Comptroller  Khari- 
tonov thus  summarized  the  benefits  of  the  Prohibition 
program  :* 

“The  present  heroic  period  has  made  possible  the  speedy 
introduction  of  heroic  measures.  The  coming  of  temperance, 
valuable  in  other  ways,  has  proven  to  be  especially  so  for  the 
economic  conditions  of  the  country  during  the  war.  Temper- 
ance has  been  that  mighty  force  that  has  made  it  possible  for 
the  economic  powers  of  our  country  to  come  out  triumphant 
over  the  baleful  influence  of  the  war,  and  has  increased  the  effi- 
ciency of  our  labor.  It  was  this  increase  in  efficiency  that  made 
possible  to  make  up  for  the  absence  of  working  hands,  whose 
services  are  needed  for  the  gun  and  the  sword.  It  was  tem- 
perance that  made  possible  the  growth  of  savings,  which  is  es- 
pecially useful  in  the  time  of  war,  when  the  country  has  to 
undergo  martial,  as  well  as  financial,  sacrifices.  Einally,  temper- 
ance has  made  possible  the  spiritual  bond  that  exists  between 
the  country  and  the  battle  fronts,  has  forged  the  unconquerable 
unity  of  the  army  and  the  people  and  has  thus  been  a source  of 
national  courage  and  faith  in  the  eventual  triumph  over  the  foe. 
No  one  could  expect,  a year  ago,  when  the  Imperial  rescript 
concerning  the  necessity  of  combating  the  alcohol  evil  was  issued 
to  the  Minister  of  Finance,  that  Russia  would  so  soon  become 
the  most  temperate  country  in  the  world.  I shall  permit  myself 
to  quote  in  this  connection  the  famous  words  of  Tiutchev:  ‘You 
cannot  understand  Russia,  nor  apply  to  her  the  common  yard- 
stick. She  is  different  from  anything  else.  You  can  only  be- 
lieve in  Russia.’  ” 

*Kharitonov’s  statement  before  the  Budget  Committee  of 
the  Du.na,  as  it  appeared  in  Reitch  (Petrograd),  Jan.  29,  1915. 


2II 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


On  February  13,  the  Paris  correspondent  of  the 
London  Daily  Telegraph  gave  an  interview  that  he  had 
just  had  with  the  Russian  Minister  of  Finance,  M. 
Bark.  In  answer  to  a remark  that  what  most  chal- 
lenged the  admiration  of  the  world  was  the  heroic 
message  of  the  Tsar  renouncing  the  liquor  revenue, 
the  minister  said: 

“I  have  always  cherished  a great  faith  in  the  potentialities  of 
the  Russian  nation,  but  I must  admit  that  even  my  optimistic  an- 
ticipations have  been  greatly  exceeded  by  the  reality.  As  you 
know,  there  was  a considerable  deficit  to  be  covered  in  the  ordi- 
nary budget  of  the  year  1914.  Well,  we  have  stopped  the  gap 
without  difficulty  or  effort.  We  had  500,000,000  roubles  in  the 
free  reserve,  and  other  available  funds  from  which  we  drew, 
and  the  problem  was  solved.  I increased  some  few  taxes  dur- 
ing the  remaining  months  of  last  year,  and  I found  that  the  sol- 
vency of  the  peasants  has  been  raised  verj-  considerably  by  the 
law  prohibiting  the  consumption  of  alcohol,  and  that  the  benefi- 
cent operation  of  this  edict  continues  to  make  itself  felt  pro- 
gressively. 

“It  is  difficult  for  foreigners  to  realize  how  great  are  Russia’s 
economic  resources,  and  how  much  greater  thej’-  have  become 
since  the  promulgation  by  His  Majesty  of  that  humanitarian  law 
which,  I may  add,  is  felt  by  the  Russian  people  themselves,  not  as 
a restriction,  but  as  an  inestimable  boon  conferred  upon  them  by 
their  provident  monarch.  I can  assure  you  that  the  productivity 
of  every  class  of  workmen  in  Russia,  whether  we  examine  those 
engaged  in  agricultural  or  industrial  pursuits,  has  alread)-  in- 
creased by  from  30  to  50  per  cent,  to  saj-  nothing  of  the  cessa- 
tion of  the  waste  which  formerly  accompanied  and  followed  the 
consumption  of  alcohol. 

“Again,  the  rates  for  the  maintenance  of  prisoners  have  fal- 
len, because  crime  has  everywhere  diminished,  and  in  some  dis- 
tricts has  disappeared  altogether.  Another  indication  of  the  wel- 
come change  which  has  come  over  the  nation  is  afforded  by  the 
returns  of  the  savings  banks.  In  war  time  people  are  ever>-where 
nervous ; and  in  Russia,  as  elsewhere,  large  sums  were  -withdrawn 
from  the  savings  banks  as  soon  as  war  was  declared.  Well,  since 
the  total  prohibition  of  alcohol,  the  accounts  I have  received 
from  these  institutions  throughout  the  country  are  so  encourag- 
ing that  even  I,  whose  faith  in  the  Russian  people  has  always 


212 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


been  large  and  firm,  did  not  anticipate  the  rapid  and  splendid 
result  which  they  denote.  Although  only  a few  months  elapsed  be- 
tween the  promulgation  o '■he  Tsar’s  humane  and  patriotic  edict 
and  the  end  of  1914,  the  excess  of  deposits  over  withdrawals 
amounted  to  84,000,000  roubles,  or  twice  the  amount  of  the  pre- 
ceding year.  Russia’s  economic  situation,  therefore,  is  not  merely 
excellent,  but  it  is  rapidly  improving,  and  my  faith  in  her  future 
— not  a blind,  but  a carefully  reasoned  faith — is  boundless.” 

Mary  Isabel  Brush,  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post 
(Philadelphia)  of  February  20,  1915,  gives  a further 
interview  which  she  had  with  Finance  Minister  Bark, 
at  his  headquarters  in  Petrograd,  in  which  the  latter 
declared : 

“When  we  sold  vodka  the  people  were  poor.  They  stimu- 
lated themselves  with  an  artificial  strength  to  work  for  a few 
kopeks,  with  which  they  bought  more  of  the  fuel  for  renewing 
the  artificial  strength.  The  fuel,  of  course,  was  vodka.  Though 
the  money  for  drink  went  into  the  treasury,  the  human  machine 
which  made  that  money  became  weaker  and  weaker.  So  the  na- 
tion was  really  cutting  off  its  revenue  at  the  source.” 

In  the  London  Daily  Mail,  February  22,  1915,  its 
Petrograd  correspondent,  FI.  Hamilton  Fyffe,  states: 

“The  prohibition  argument  is  strong.  Crime  has  become  rarer. 
The  records  of  the  courts  prove  this.  Savings  bank  deposits  have 
increased  enormously.  The  number  of  patients  in  Petrograd 
hospitals  has  fallen  off  in  a surprising  degree.  In  the  towns, 
workmen  who  used  to  spend  their  wages  as  soon  as  they  got 
them  are  setting  up  in  business  for  themselves.  Peasants  who, 
in  vodka  days,  never  put  by  a kopek,  are  buying  good  plows  and 
drills  and  harvesting  machines.  There  is  good  work  for  all  and 
wages  are  rather  higher  than  they  were  before  the  war.  In  all 
ranks  there  are  many  (women  as  well  as  men)  who  are  the  bet- 
ter for  their  enforced  abstinence.  Brightness  has  come  back  to 
eyes  dulled  by  over  indulgence.  Cheeks  which  were  gray  and 
flabby  have  color  in  them  again.” 

The  war  correspondents  give  similar  accounts  of 
the  happy  results  of  the  no-drink  policy  in  the  army. 
“The  soberness  of  the  army  is  beyond  question.  I 

213 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


have  not  seen  a single  tipsy  or  disorderly  soldier  or 
officer,  and  hearsay  reports  are  extremely  rare,”  writes 
one.*  And  again  the  correspondent  of  the  same  paper 
reports : 

“The  one  thing  that  impresses  the  observer  more  and  more 
each  day  is  the  soberness  and  good  behavior  of  the  Russian 
troops.  I have  now  been  with  the  army  nearly  three  weeks,  and 
have  seen  thousands  upon  thousands  of  soldiers  from  all  parts 
of  Russia.  I have  yet  to  see  the  first  drunken  or  disorderly  man 
connected  with  the  army,  either  officer  or  soldier.  The  dread  of 
soldiery,  which  is  the  rule  when  armies  are  spread  over  the  land, 
is  absolutely  lacking.  It  is  certain  that  the  prohibition  of  strong 
drink  has  worked  wonders  in  the  Russian  Army,  and  is  one  of 
the  greatest  factors  in  the  splendid  showing,  both  in  the  field 
and  in  the  cities,  that  is  being  made  by  the  Russian  armies  today 
both  in  Galicia  and  in  the  Polish  theater  of  war.”t 

Under  date  of  March  2,  1915,  United  States  Con- 
sul General  John  H.  Snodgrass,  of  Moscow,  made  a 
report  to  the  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Com- 
merce of  the  State  Department  at  Washington.  In 
this  report.  Consul  Snodgrass  thus  summarized  his  ob- 
servations regarding  the  effect  of  the  Prohibition  policy 
in  Moscow : 

“The  Prohibition  of  selling  brandy  in  the  government  monop- 
oly shops  was  introduced  throughout  the  Empire  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  war,  on  the  daj'  of  mobilization,  and  has  now 
been  in  force  for  more  than  six  months.  One  of  the  Russian 
papers  has  made  inquiries  concerning  the  results  of  this  meas- 
ure and  has  published  some  of  the  statistical  data  that  were 
collected.  The  following  list  shows  the  consumption  of  vodka 
in  the  city  of  Moscow  in  1914  compared  with  the  preceding  j-ear: 
July,  612,686  gallons  in  1913  and  359,124  gallons  in  1914;  August, 
667,926  gallons  in  1913  and  23,373  gallons  in  1914;  September, 
759>947  gallons  in  1913  and  7,314  gallons  in  1914;  October,  707,688 
gallons  in  1913  and  2,913  gallons  in  1914.  During  the  first  three 
months  vodka  could  be  obtained  at  the  first-class  restaurants  for 

*London  Times,  Nov.  9,  1914. 

\Ibid,  Nov.  19,  1915. 


214 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


consumption  in  the  same,  the  selling  of  vodka  in  bottles  being 
prohibited  under  a fine  of  $1,500. 

“It  is  observed  in  the  manufacturing  concerns  that  labor  has 
become  much  more  productive  than  before.  Formerly  at  the 
Moscow  mills  many  workmen  would  not  appear  on  Monday,  and 
a number  of  those  who  did  were  unfit  for  duty  in  consequence  of 
their  Sunday  excesses.  This  is  no  longer  the  case ; both  the 
quality  and  the  quantity  of  labor  performed  has  improved.” 

The  same  no-drink  policy  prevails  when  the  Rus- 
sian army  goes  outside  of  Russian  territory.  The 
Army  Orders  of  Grand  Duke  Nicholas  provided  that 
as  soon  as  the  Russian  troops  occupy  a town,  the 


r y 


215 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


liquor  shops  must  be  immediately  closed,  and  that  no 
liquor  be  supplied  to  the  soldiers  under  any  circum- 
stances. 

“So  tremendous  is  the  improvement,  indeed,  that 
even  at  the  end  of  the  war  there  will  doubtless  be  an 
agitation  for  the  abolition  of  the  liquor  traffic  alto- 
gether, and  the  conversion  of  Russia  into  what  the 
Americans  would  call  a ‘dry’  Empire,”  wrote  the 
correspondent  of  the  London  Daily  News.  * The  Petro- 
grad  correspondent  of  the  London  Morning  Post  wrote; 
“The  effects  of  the  enforced  sobriety  throughout  Rus- 
sia have  proved  to  the  population  how  beneficial  the 
government  measures  have  been.  Village  women  are 
openly  saying  that  heaven  has  come  upon  earth,  and 
this  in  the  midst  of  the  most  bloody  war  ever  known 
in  history.  . . . From  many  centers,  especially  from 
country  districts,  petitions  keep  coming  in,  begging 
that  the  present  total  prohibition,  which  extends  for 
the  duration  of  the  war,  may  be  made  perpetual. ”t 

“The  great  victory  over  drunkenness  in  Russia 
has  received  far  too  little  attention  in  this  country. 
Since  China  proscribed  opium  the  world  has  seen 
nothing  like  it.  W e have  been  well  reminded  that  in 
sternly  prohibiting  the  sale  of  spirituous  liquor  Russia 
has  already  vanquished  a greater  foe  than  the  Ger- 
mans,” declared  the  London  TimesX  in  a leading  article. 

In  the  issue  of  March  5,  1915,  the  London  Times 
contains  the  following  from  its  special  correspondent 
with  the  Russian  army,  Mr.  Stanley  Washburn : 

“One  cannot  write  of  the  Russian  mobilization  or  of  the  re- 
juvenation of  the  Russian  Empire  without  touching  on  the  pro- 

*Sept.  18,  1914. 

fOct.  17,  1914. 

iSept.  21,  1914. 

216 


ST.  ISAAC’S  CATHEDRAL 

THE  LARGEST  AND  MOST  MAGNIFICENT  CHURCH  IN  PETROGRAD.  BUILT  BY  CATHERINE  11.  IN  I765. 
IT  RESTS  ON  OVER  1,200  PILES  DRIVEN  INTO  MARSHY  L.VND.  EACH  OF  THE  FOUR  MAIN 
ENTR.VNCES  ARE  SUPPORTED  BY  SIXTEEN  MONOLITHS  OF  SOLID  FINNISH 
GRANITE,  EACH  55  FEET  HIGH. 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


hibition  of  vodka.  Those  who  know  Russia  never  dreamed  that 
when  the  lid  was  put  on,  it  would  be  air-tight,  and  the  pro- 
foundest  believers  in  prohibition  never  imagined  how  far-reach- 
ing would  be  the  benefits.  The  first  manifest  evidence  of  in- 
creased efficiency  was,  of  course,  in  the  manner  and  promptness 
with  which  the  army  assembled;  but,  from  that  day,  the  benefits 
have  been  increasingly  visible,  not  only  in  the  army,  but  in  every 
phase  of  Russian  life.  At  a time  when  money  has  been  tight  the 
savings  banks  have  enormously  increased  their  deposits.  . . . 

“The  most  important  effects,  however,  have  been  in  the  army. 
In  nearly  six  months’  association  with  the  armies  in  many  dif- 
ferent theaters  of  operations  I have  not  seen  a single  drunken  or 
tipsy  officer  or  soldier.  This,  then,  was  the  first  sign  of  what 
New  Russia  intended  to  do  in  this  war.  At  one  stroke  she  freed 
herself  of  the  curse  that  has  paralyzed  her  peasant  life  for  gen- 
erations. This  in  itself  is  nothing  short  of  a revolution.” 

It  was  not  long  before  the  good  results  of  the  no- 
drink regime  began  to  become  apparent  in  government 
statistics.  M.  Kharitonov,  the  Treasury  Comptroller, 
speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Minister  of  Finance  be- 
fore the  Budget  Committee  of  the  Duma,  on  January 
25,  announced  that  while  the  population  of  the  Rus- 
sian  Empire  is  confronted  with  certain  economic  diffi- 
culties as  the  result  of  the  war,  still  no  great  suffering 
has  been  caused  thereby.  The  cause  of  these  favor- 
able economic  conditions  in  Russia  was,  no  doubt,  the 
prohibition  of  the  sale  of  spirits.  As  a proof  of  this 
he  quoted  statistics  of  the  national  savings,  which,  in 
December,  1913,  only  amounted  to  700,000  roubles,  as 
compared  with  29,100,000  r.  in  December,  1914;  while 
in  the  first  half  of  January,  1913,  they  were  300,000  r., 
as  compared  with  15,300,000  r.  for  the  corresponding 
period  this  year.  The  total  savings  for  1913  amounted 
to  34,000,000  r.,  as  against  84,000,000  r.  in  1914.  These 
remarkable  figures  constitute  an  overwhelming  proof 
of  the  unshakable  economic  power  of  Russia.* 

*London  Times,  Jan.  26,  1915. 

217 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


During  the  first  two  months  of  temperance  the 
population  of  Russia  saved  144,500,000  roubles,  or 
2,400,000  roubles  a day.  The  Government’s  Savings 
Banks  at  Moscow  and  other  cities  report  that  recently 
the  number  of  small  depositors  has  increased,  especi- 
ally among  the  workers.  In  small  places  new  branches 
have  to  be  opened.  As  a general  thing,  the  month  of 
August  shows  heavy  drawings  upon  the  savings 
banks,  while  this  year,  in  spite  of  the  war,  the  month 
of  August  gave  an  increase  of  7,000,000  roubles.  This 
result  is  considered  by  the  Ministry  of  Finance  to  be 
due  entirely  to  temperance.* 

Naturally  there  have  been  attempts  at  illicit  dis- 
tillation, but  these  have  not  been  as  extensive  as 
might  have  been  expected  under  such  revolutionary 
circumstances.  The  Ministry  of  Finance  made  an  in- 
vestigation and  issued  a statement  which  covered  the 
first  six  months  in  which  prohibition  had  been  ef- 
fective. The  statement  shows  that  during  this  period 
government  inspectors  discovered  2,825  illicit  dis- 
tilleries producing  a special  kind  of  raw  whisky  called 
kumushka.  The  word  “distillery,”  however,  means 
but  little  when  it  is  considered  that  a teapot  and  a 
piece  of  rubber  or  metal  pipe  is  sufficient  to  constitute 
a still.  It  also  appears  from  the  statement  that,  of 
these  2,825  distilleries,  only  160  were  found  with  a 
first-class  equipment.  In  all,  92  places  were  found 
where  polishes  and  varnishes  were  rectified  into  drink- 
ables and  60  places  where  denatured  alcohol  was  be- 
ing rectified. t In  a country  comprising  one-sixth  of 
the  earth’s  surface,  it  is  somewhat  surprising  that  a 
larger  number  of  illicit  concerns  were  not  unearthed. 

*Viestnik  Tresvosti  (Petrograd),  December,  1914. 

^Riisskoye  Slovo  (N.  Y.),  March  25,  1915. 


THT^  OVERTHROW  Oi-  THE  MONOPOLY 


The  Russian  people  are  jubilant  at  the  outlook, 
and  so  express  themselves  at  every  opportunity.  Even 
the  distillers  who  so  fiercely  fought  the  excise  reform 
proposals  in  1913  now  cheerfully  accept  the  situation 
and,  instead  of  fighting  the  government,  are  planning 
how  best  to  utilize  their  alcohol  by  promoting  its  use 
in  a denatured  form  in  manufactures,  and  in  this  they 
are  receiving  the  hearty  co-operation  of  the  govern- 
ment. These  men  are  for  the  most  part  Russians  first 
and  distillers  afterward. 

Minister  of  Finance  Bark  plainly  asks  Russia  to 
make  the  sacrifice  of  removing  her  troubles  because, 
if  she  does,  “the  people  will  be  healthier  and  the  state 
will  be  stronger.”  Those  who  made  their  calculations 
on  Russia  going  into  the  war  after  the  manner  of  a 
gigantic  drunken  hoodlum  were  mistaken  for  once. 
Drink  was  altogether  too  great  a factor  in  her  humili- 
ation at  the  hands  of  Japan  to  be  forgotten. 

What  will  be  done  after  the  war  is  over,  no  one 
can  tell.  It  may  be  that  Providence  is  using  this 
frightful  Golgotha  to  work  out  some  far-reaching 
problem  for  the  permanent  welfare  of  humanity.  It 
would  be  indeed  a fortunate  war,  one  well  worth 
while,  if  it  should  end  in  the  extinction  of  both  war 
and  drink.  What  language  contains  words  powerful 
enough  to  describe  the  boon  such  an  outcome  would 
be  to  the  world.  There  is  no  seer  to  foretell,  but  little 
by  little  the  veil  of  the  future  is  being  lifted,  and  we 
get  glimpses  of  possibilities  when  the  resources  of  the 
earth  may  be  used  for  the  welfare  rather  than  for  the 
destruction  of  the  children  of  men.  Out  of  the  chaos 
of  a thousand  years  comes  this  semi-barbaric  civiliza- 
tion with  a new  revelation,  to  which  the  world  listens 
and  wonders. 

And  what  of  the  drink  monopoly?  “They  call 
219 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


me  the  ‘father  of  the  drink  monopoly,’  and  I do  not 
deny  it.  But  I wanted  to  make  the  girl  an  honest 
woman,  whereas  she  has  been  brought  up  by  other 
persons  in  such  a way  that  she  is  now  walking  the 
Nevsky  Prospect.  I intended  her  for  an  honest  life, 
and  not  for  one  of  vice.  My  heart  aches  on  her  ac- 
count,” said  the  great  Count  Witte  a few  weeks  be- 
fore his  death.  Those  who  have  visited  Petrograd  and 
are  familiar  with  the  sinister  meaning  behind  the  ref- 
erence to  a girl  “walking  the  Nevsky  Prospect”  can 
understand  the  bitterness  of  the  Count’s  words. 

Never  in  the  history  of  the  world  did  a man  ally 
himself  to  the  powers  of  vice  without  suffering  there- 
from. Never  in  the  history  of  civilization  has  a nation 
harnessed  itself  to  the  institutions  of  debaucher}^  with- 
out having  visited  upon  it  evils  incalculable  in  their 
corroding  power.  One  by  one  civilizations  have  come 
and,  under  such  policies,  they  have  disappeared,  re- 
gardless of  what  good  may  have  been  bequeathed  by 
them  to  history.  The  development  of  law  did  not  save 
wanton  Rome.  Unnatural  vices  blotted  out  Greece 
despite  her  art  and  her  philosophy.  War  did  not  save 
Assyria,  neither  did  the  perfection  of  the  occult  save 
Egypt,  the  light  of  the  world  for  fifty  centuries.  Just 
as  the  university  man,  given  over  to  vice,  ends  his 
days  in  the  Potter’s  field,  likewise  the  nation,  follow- 
ing this  path,  finds  itself  buried  deep  under  the  eternal 
progress  of  the  world.  The  law  of  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  applies  to  nations  with  equal  force  as  to  indi- 
viduals, and  is  as  unchanging  as  the  principle  of  gravi- 
tation which  holds  in  place  planets  of  the  universe. 
The  balances  of  account  hold  good  in  the  moral 
as  well  as  in  the  physical  world,  and  when  an  at- 
tempt is  made  to  compute  how  many  countless  bil- 
lions the  people  of  Russia  have  paid  out  in  order  to 


220 


THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MONOPOLY 


get  the  vodka  millions  into  the  government  treasury, 
one  is  lost  in  a maze  of  bewildering  calculation.  He 
can  have  no  mental  conception  of  the  immensity  of 
the  statistics ; neither  can  he  fathom  the  bottomless 
depths  of  human  suffering  that  they  represent.  Just 
so,  in  an  attempt  to  comprehend  the  distance  to  the 
farthest  star,  the  observer  is  bewildered,  stupefied  and, 
in  the  midst  of  such  things,  instinctively,  helplessly, 
hopefully,  turns  his  thoughts  and  his  heart  upward  to 
Almighty  God. 


221 


INDEX 


A 

Abstaining  Railway  Men,  90. 

Akinov,  M.  G.,  180. 

Albert,  Y.,  106. 

Alexander  I.  promotes  emancipa- 
tion, 68;  recognizes  Finnish  Con- 
stitution, 80 ; abolished  farming 
system,  114;  115;  119. 

Alexander  II.,  42;  efforts  of  for 
emancipation,  70  et  seq. ; signs 
act  of  emancipation,  71;  assas- 
sination of,  73;  abolishes  corpor- 
al punishment,  74 ; reforms  of, 
116;  151. 

Alexander  III.  promotes  vodka  mo- 
nopoly, 119. 

Alexander  Nevsky  Temperance  So- 
ciety, 164. 

Alexander,  Prince  of  Oldenburg, 
162;  190. 

Alexis  (Tsar),  64;  112;  conclave 
of,  151. 

Alexis  Public  House,  petitions  for 
temperance  instruction  in  the 
schools,  177. 

Alexis,  the  Tsarevich,  161. 

Alexyiev,  Dr.,  temperance  work  of, 
153  et  seq. 

All-Russian  Congress  to  Combat 
the  Drink  Evil,  168. 

All-Russian  Working  Union  of 
Christians,  164;  166;  199. 

Andersson,  Emil,  promotes  anti- 
drink strike,  86. 

Anna,  opposed  excess,  140. 

Antonious,  Prof.,  157. 

Apraksin,  Admiral,  138. 

Armenian  Churches,  suppressed  by 
Elizabeth,  140. 

Arvelin,  K.  A.,  forms  temperance 
society,  81. 

Askold,  24. 

Association  for  the  Promotion  of 
the  General  Welfare,  107. 

Autocracy,  limitations  of,  31;  35. 

B 

Babitch,  Lt.  Gov.,  anti-drink  order 
of,  175. 

Baird,  Robert,  100;  102;  151. 

Baltic  Provinces,  illiteracy,  34 ; 
chapter  on.  97  et  seq. 

Baranovski,  Prof.,  81. 

Baring,  Maurice,  quoted,  144. 

Bark,  Peter  L.,  appointed  Minister 
of  Finance,  191;  194;  196;  quot- 
ed, 212,  218. 

Bashak,  27. 

Basil,  29. 

Beer,  prohibition  of,  195;  202;  204. 

Belski,  Dr.,  temperance  work  of, 
161. 


Births,  rate  of,  49. 

Bismarck,  138. 

Bjorkenheim,  Edw.,  quoted,  89. 

Bobrikov,  Governor,  80;  90;  100. 

Bogddanpwiez,  P.,  109. 

Boyars,  22;  59. 

Braga,  134;  144. 

Brethren  of  the  Sword,  98. 

Brush,  Isabel,  212. 

Bunge,  N.  K.,  119. 

Bureau  of  Popular  Temperance,  168. 

Butter  Week.  See  Feast  of  Mass- 
lenitsa. 

C 

Cafes,  character  of,  104. 

Camomile  day,  56. 

Canton,  39. 

(Canute  VI.,  98. 

(Capital  punishment,  abolished,  74. 

Catherine  II,,  18;  42;  43;  and  serf- 
dom, 65;  66;  67;  69;  established 
farming  system,  112;  114;  115. 

Catholic  Church  temperance  activi- 
ties, 108  et  seq. 

Caucasius,  illiteracy  in,  34. 

Censorship,  of  the  stage  and  press, 
17;  18. 

Charity,  45  et  seq. 

Charles  XII.,  wars  on  Russia,  79. 

Chastity,  50;  150. 

Chersonesus,  26. 

Children,  56 ; child  labor  laws,  57 ; 
temperance  society  in  Finland, 
82';  drink  among,  172. 

Christianity,  introduced,  26 ; in 
Finland,  79. 

Cleveland,  Grover,  quoted,  33. 

(College  Students  Abstainers,  mem- 
bership of,  90. 

Communes,  61. 

Compulsory  regulations,  38. 

Co-operative  societies,  encouraged, 
57. 

Conscription,  65. 

Constantine  Constantovich,  Grand 
Duke,  temperance  work  of,  166; 
190;  199. 

Constantine,  Grand  Duke,  efforts  of 
for  emancipation,  71. 

Consumption  of  Liquor  in  Finland, 
92;  125;  in  Russia,  127;  128; 
129;  130;  decreased  by  prohibi- 
tion, 213. 

Corporal  punishment,  64  ; 65  ; 73. 

Cossacks,  175. 

(Ilouncil  of  Deputies,  43. 

Council  of  the  Empire,  debate  in,  179. 

Courier  of  Temperance.  See  Viest- 
nik  Tresvosti. 

Courland,  97 ; 98. 

C^ramer,  Nicholas  de.,  quoted,  131  ; 
171;  quoted,  180;  189;  193;  199. 


223 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


B 

Death  penalty,  abolished,  74. 

Deaths,  rate  of,  49. 

De  Breteuel,  quoted,  141. 

Deglau,  A.,  work  of,  105. 

Democracy,  23 ; decline  of,  27  et 
seq. 

Demons,  143. 

Denatured  alcohol,  statistics  for 
Finland,  94. 

Despotism,  21 ; 23. 

Dietoubiytsi,  45. 

Distilled  Spirits,  statistics  for  Fin- 
land, 95 ; for  Russia,  125. 

Distilleries,  number  of,  116;  126; 
in  Siberia,  149 ; school  children 
employed  in,  172;  illicit,  217. 

Dobbner,  Pastor,  101. 

Doctors,  ethics  of,  56. 

Dolgurki,  tribute  to  Nicholas  I.,  68. 

Donskoi,  Dimitri,  2'8. 

Dostoievsky,  19. 

Drink,  opposed  by  Alexis,  64 ; in 
Finland,  75  et  seq. ; statistics  for 
Finland,  94;  in  Riga,  104;  115; 
117;  133  et  seq.;  in  early  Mos- 
cow, 136;  in  Peter’s  court,  138; 
in  Elizabeth’s  time,  141;  prac- 
tices of  Peter  III.,  141 ; among 
peasants,  144 ; among  children, 
172. 

Druzhiny,  59. 

Dukhobortsi,  46. 

Duma,  31;  57;  debate  in  the,  169; 
179;  204. 

Dushilschiki,  46. 

Dvornik,  50. 

E 

Education,  33;  177. 

Ekaterindar,  drink  conditions  in, 
172. 

Eleonsky,  Mr.,  cited,  167. 

Elizabeth,  zeal  for  religion,  140. 

Elizabeth  Feodorovna,  Grand  Duch- 
ess, 160. 

Emancipation,  discussed,  67 ; pro- 
moted, 68  et  seq.;  declared,  71. 

Empress  Marie,  institutions  of,  51. 

Eric  IX.,  introduces  Christianity 
into  Finland,  79. 

Esthonians,  76;  97;  98;  110;  157; 
165;  166. 

Esthonian  Temperance  Society 
Jaith,  165. 

Evangelical  Union  Uplift,  106. 

E.xcise  Reform  Bill,  179. 

F 

Famines,  57. 

Farming  System,  103;  112;  114; 

115;  profits  of,  117. 

Father  John,  27. 

Father  Paul,  167. 

Feast  of  Masslenitsa,  146. 


Feast  of  the  Fools,  138. 

Filipovtai,  46. 

Finland,  education  in,  34;  chapter 
on,  75;  grants  suffrage  to  wom- 
en, 77 ; statistics  early  temper- 
ance societies,  83 ; drink  legisla- 
tion, 89 ; prohibition  law  passed, 
91;  private  distillation  in,  92; 
war  order  in,  93 ; liquor  statis- 
tics, 94 ; 95. 

Finland’s  Svenska  Nykterhetsfor- 
bund,  membership  of,  90. 

Finnish  Home  Society,  offers  prizes 
for  temperance  essays,  81. 

Finnish  Temperance  Society  Al- 
kov, 165. 

First  Russian  Sergei  School  of 
Temperance,  165. 

Flehoff,  Dr.,  temperance  work  of, 
161. 

Flogging,  64;  65;  73. 

Foundling  hospitals,  51. 

Free  wandering  people,  65. 

Friedenburg,  Andrei,  temperance 
work  of,  107. 

Friends  of  Temperance.  See  Rait- 
tenden  Ystavat. 

Fyffe,  H.  Hamilton,  212. 

G 

Gemeinschaftsblatt,  105. 

Germans,  oppression  of  in  Baltic 
Provinces,  98 ; 102 ; temperance 
influence  of,  110. 

Good  Templars,  suppressed  in  Fin- 
land, 108. 

Golden  Horde,  28. 

Gorky,  Maxim,  18;  19. 

Gothenburg  System,  introduced  in- 
to Finland,  87  ; 92  ; statistics,  96. 

Governor,  powers  of,  38. 

Granfeldt,  A.  A.,  83. 

Great  Eagle,  the,  138. 

Greek  Church,  150;  166;  177;  200. 

Grevingk,  Elizabeth  von,  107. 

Grigoriev,  Dr.  N.,  statistics  of, 
128;  159. 

Gudonov,  Boris,  63. 

Gustavus  III.,  confers  fundamental 
laws  on  Finland,  79. 

H 

Habeas  corpus,  17. 

Hanseatic  League,  98. 

Haxtheusen,  quoted,  117. 

Heikkila,  Kalle,  promotes  anti- 
drink strike,  86. 

Helenius,  Ali  Trygg,  84. 

Helenius-Seppala,  JIatti,  84. 

Helman,  Hilda,  temperance  society 
of,  81;  82. 

Henry,  Bishop  of  Upsala,  79. 

Holy  Synod,  temperance  activity 
of,  177;  200. 

Hospitals,  56. 

House  of  the  Black  Heads,  104. 


224 


INDEX 


Illiteracy,  33 ; statistics,  34. 

Imperial  Council,  31 ; 36. 
Institutions  of  the  Empress  Marie, 
51 ; balance  sheet  of,  55. 
Intelligents,  demands  of,  48;  113. 
International  Committee  for  Scien- 
tific Study  of  the  Liquor  Ques- 
tion, 178. 

International  Congress  Against  the 
Abuse  of  Alcohol,  89. 

Isvoschiks,  104. 

Ivan  III.  (The  Great),  29. 

Ivan  IV.  (The  Terrible),  29;  30; 
prohibition  of,  134;  character 
of,  137. 

Izba,  114;  148. 

J 

Jaroslav,  25 ; 27. 

Jenkinson,  Anthony,  quoted,  136. 
Jews,  58;  113;  114. 

Jumpers,  47. 

K 

Kabak,  133. 

Kairys,  L.,  109. 

Kalevala,  75. 

Kasnaskoe  Temperance  Society,  164. 
Kelnyck,  cited,  171. 

Kennan,  George,  cited,  131 ; on 
Prohibition,  206  et  seq. 

Kennard,  Howard  P.,  quoted,  142 ; 
146;  148. 

Kharkov,  serfdom  extended  to,  67. 
Kiev,  24;  26. 

Kohtunden  Ystavat,  83. 

Kokovtsov,  defends  monopoly,  185 ; 

186;  189;  overthrow  of,  190. 

Kol  Slavin,  30. 

Kornilov,  A.  A.,  165. 

Kovno,  illiteracy  in,  34 ; 97. 

Kniaz,  2'2. 

Krapvensk,  drink  conditions  in,  173. 
Krivoshein,  Minister,  declares  for 
prohibition,  199. 

Kubansk  Territory,  conditions  in, 
175. 

Kulikvo,  battle  of,  28. 

Kumushka,  217. 

Kurakin,  Prince,  140. 

Kvass,  134. 

L 

Land  captain,  40. 

Land  tenure,  59  et  seq.;  69;  72;  99. 
Laplanders,  76. 

Lavka,  135. 

Lettish  Abstinence  Union,  Ausek- 
lis,  105. 

Letts,  97;  99;  103;  temperance  ac- 
tivities of,  105;  110. 

Levashev,  Prof.,  quoted,  169. 

Libau,  drunkenness  at,  103. 

Liberty,  19;  20;  22;  23;  30;  Cath- 


erine’s idea  of,  43  ; 60  ; 99. 

Litauscher  Anti-Alcohol  Union  Lie- 
dra,  109. 

Litauscher  Roman  Catholic  Tem- 
perance Union,  108. 

Lithuania,  princes  of,  27 ; 28 ; 61 ; 
97;  99. 

Livin,  Andrew,  55. 

Livonia,  97 ; 102. 

Local  option,  in  Finland,  92;  153; 
174;  180;  194. 

Local  self-government,  43. 

Lomonosov,  19. 

Louhi,  75. 

Lutheran  Church,  dominant  in  Fin- 
land, 79 ; activities  of  in  the  Bal- 
tic Provinces,  105  et  seq. 

M 

Maklakov,  N.A.,  instructions  of,  192'. 

Malt  Liquor,  statistics  for  Finland, 
94. 

Mansirev,  Prince,  quoted,  170. 

Maria  Feodorovna,  53. 

Marie  Feodorovna,  52. 

Marmontel,  Bearde  I’Abaye,  67. 

Marriage,  50;  144. 

Masslenitsa,  Feast  of,  146. 

Matthew  Temperance  Society,  164. 

Molchalniki,  46. 

Mendelsshon,  Dr.,  178. 

Menshikov,  drunkenness  of,  139. 

Messenger  of  Temperance.  See 
Viestnik  Tresvosti. 

Mir,  40 ; 46 ; new  organization  of, 
72;  118. 

Mongols,  invasion  of,  27. 

Moscow,  rise  of,  28;  29;  illiteracy 
in,  34 ; 61 ; early  drinking  cus- 
toms in,  136 ; temperance  move- 
ment in,  160;  drink  conditions 
in,  173;  action  of  City  Council 
of,  200;  prohibition  in,  203;  213. 

Mouraviev,  Gen.,  102. 

Mujik,  home  life  of,  49;  57;  62; 
114;  144. 

N 

Nali,  135. 

Navy,  vodka  ration  abolished  from, 
176,  195. 

Nelins,  K.,  107. 

Nevsky,  Alexander,  25. 

Nicholas  I.,  friendly  to  emancipa- 
tion, 68. 

Nicholas  II.,  52';  115;  rescript  to 
M.  Bark,  191 ; prohibition  order 
of,  195 ; 196 ; telegram  to  Con- 
stantine, 199. 

Nicholas,  Grand  Duke,  closing 
drinking  shops,  194;  197;  214. 

Nihilism,  42  ; 67  ; 73. 

Nikon,  reforms  of,  112. 

Novgorod,  24;  25;  26;  28;  fall  of, 
29. 


225 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


o 

Obolensky,  Prince,  prohibition  or- 
der of,  202;  209. 

Old  Believers,  46. 

Oldenburg.  See  Alexander,  Prince 
of. 

Oprichniki,  30. 

Orlov,  Alexis,  murdered  Peter  III., 
142. 

Orthodox  Church.  See  Greek 
Church. 

Ostomar,  75. 

Oulianovskoie  Temperance  Society, 
165. 

Owen,  Isambart,  cited,  178. 

P 

Patriotic  Club  of  Riga,  101. 

Paul,  character  of,  52 ; promotes 
emancipation,  68. 

Pavlovsk,  prohibition  in,  167. 

Peasants,  customs  of,  144. 

Personal  liberty,  18;  19;  20. 

People’s  Palaces,  162. 

Peter  I.  (The  Great),  64;  conquers 
Finland,  79;  a heavy  drinker, 
137;  139. 

Peter  III.,  66;  heavy  drinker,  141; 
assassination  of,  142. 

Petrograd,  illiteracy  in,  34 ; educa- 
tional institutions  in,  53;  con- 
sumption of  vodka  in,  131;  142; 
temperance  movement  in,  162; 
prohibition  in,  202';  204. 

Petrograd  Temperance  Society,  164. 

Pevo,  135. 

Philippine  Islands,  government  of, 
32. 

Pogroms,  58;  114. 

Poklevsky,  Kosiello,  the  vodka 
king,  149. 

Poland,  illiteracy  in,  34. 

Polevoi,  143. 

Police  system,  42 ; 50. 

Political  liberty,  20. 

Pomiestie,  61. 

Press,  censorship  of,  17. 

Priyut,  51. 

Prohibition,  in  Finland,  91  ; of 
Ivan,  134;  in  communes,  153;  in 
Pavlovsk,  167;  spread  of,  174; 
180;  194;  petitions  for,  195;  cam- 
paign for,  199;  petitions  for,  200; 
in  Petrograd,  202 ; in  Moscow, 
203  ; many  places  adopt,  204 ; re- 
sults of,  205 ; Geo.  Kennan  on, 
206 ; results  of,  210  et  seq. ; M. 
Baric  on,  212;  Consul  Gen.  Snod- 
grass on,  2'13;  deposits  in  savings 
banks  increased  under,  216. 

Pskow,  28 ; fall  of,  29 ; drink  con- 
ditions in,  172. 

Pushkin,  19. 


R 

Rainbow  Maiden,  75. 

Raittenden  Ystavat,  organization  of, 
83 ; 88 ; membership  of,  90. 

Rambaud,  Alfred,  quoted,  138; 
139;  147. 

Relander,  Konr.,  86. 

Religion,  45. 

Rengwirt,  Pastor  Henrik,  promotes 
temperance,  81 ; 83. 

Revenue,  from  liquor,  117;  121; 

122;  123;  effect  of  prohibition 

on,  204;  216. 

Riga,  conditions  in,  104 ; vice  in, 
105;  temperance  activities  in,  106. 

Riga  Catholic  Temperance  Union, 
109. 

Riga  Temperance  Union  Rights, 
109. 

Riga  Union  for  the  Support  of  To- 
tal Abstinence,  106. 

Rostov-on-Don,  adopts  prohibition, 
174. 

Ruchlov,  declares  for  prohibition, 
199. 

Rurik,  24  ; 2'5  ; 26. 

Rus,  22. 

Russell,  Dr.,  quoted,  152. 

Russian  Congress  of  Medical  Men, 
resolutions  of,  170. 

S 

St.  Henry.  See  Henry,  Bishop  of 
Upsala. 

Samovar,  135. 

Saratov,  drink  conditions  in,  172. 

Savings  bank,  increase  deposits  un- 
der prohibition,  216. 

Scharbert,  O.,  107. 

Schilling,  K.,  106. 

Schmidt,  C.  W.,  temperance  work 
of,  107. 

Section  IV.,  51;  53;  56. 

Senate,  character  of,  37. 

Serafimovskoie  Temperance  Soci- 
ety, 165. 

Serfdom,  34 ; chapter  on,  59  et  seq. ; 
abolished,  71;  in  Baltic  Prov- 
inces, 98. 

Sergius,  Grand  Duke,  temperance 
movement  of,  160;  162. 

Seskis,  Jean,  quoted,  100. 

Siberia,  illiteracy  in,  34;  65;  drink 
in,  126;  149;  critics  of  monopoly 
sent  to,  171. 

Sineus,  24. 

Skarzynski,  Louis,  propaganda  of, 
178. 

Skoptsi,  45. 

Slavery,  34 ; 60  et  seq. ; abolish- 
ed,  71. 

Slavic  tribes,  origin  of,  21. 

Slavophiles,  64 ; 80. 

Slayers  of  Children,  45. 


226 


INDEX 


Smirnov,  P.,  temperance  society 
of,  81. 

Smolensk,  drink  conditions  in,  173. 

Snellman,  J.  W.,  temperance  work 
of,  81. 

Snodgrass,  John  H.,  report  of,  213. 

Social  insurance,  57. 

Society  for  Fighting  Against  Alco- 
hol in  the  Public  Schools,  165. 

Society  of  Political  Economy,  pro- 
motes emancipation,  67 ; 68. 

Sokowlsky,  Pastor,  101. 

Souchomlinov,  Gen.,  declares  for 
Prohibition,  199. 

Speranski,  promotes  emancipation, 

68. 

Stadling,  J.,  quoted,  149. 

Stage,  censorship  of,  17. 

Starosta,  40. 

Stolypin,  Premier,  32 ; 38. 

Strigoliki,  persecuted,  26. 

Strike  Leagues  against  drink,  86 
et  seq. 

Sturkas,  A.,  109. 

Suffrage,  33 ; woman’s  in  Finland, 
77. 

Suvorov,  66. 

Sweden,  subjugates  Finland,  79. 

T 

Tartars,  invasion  of,  27 ; 61. 

Taxes,  how  paid,  41;  62;  liquor 

taxation,  92. 

Teachers’  Society  of  Health  and 
Temperance,  84. 

Temperance  Evangelist  Union,  106. 

Temperance  Union  Agris  Rihts,  109. 

Temperance  Union  Upsina,  109. 

Temperance  Union  Welle,  109. 

Tenth  man,  41. 

Tolstoi,,  19;  153;  temperance  work 
of,  154;  187. 

Torture,  73. 

Tourgeniev,  19;  quoted,  142. 

Traktirs,  character  of,  104. 

Truvor,  24. 

Tsar,  origin  of,  22';  where  buried, 
30;  powers  of,  31;  35;  head  of 
the  church,  37  ; limitations  of,  72; 
Grand  Duke  of  Finland,  78 ; 92. 

Tschelishev,  propaganda  of,  179,  et 
seq;  career  of,  186;  189;  199; 
quoted,  209. 

Tukschitkalnis,  Y.,  109. 

Tuliakov,  I.  N.,  quoted,  169. 

U 

Uiezd,  39. 

Ulozhenie,  63. 

V 

Varangers,  22;  23;  24. 

Variag,  22;  23;  24. 


Vasili  Buslaevich,  136. 

Vasili  Ivanovich,  135. 

Veche,  21  ; 26  ; 2'8  ; 59. 

Vice,  in  Riga,  105. 

Viestnik  Tresvosti,  128;  159. 

Vishnegradski,  M.,  119. 

Vladimir,  26;  quoted,  136. 

Vodka,  42;  defined,  49;  influence 
on  childhood,  56;  chapter  on 
monopoly.  111;  revenue  from, 
116;  corruption  from,  117;  prices 
of,  12'3 ; consumption  of,  126; 
128;  129;  130;  in  Petrograd, 

131;  in  Siberia,  149;  abolished 
from  navy,  176;  prohibited,  195; 
202. 

Vodka  Monopoly,  chapter  on.  111; 
115;  118;  instituted,  120;  reve- 
nue from,  121;  122;  123;  sales 
of,  125 ; statistics  of,  126 ; pur- 
poses of,  160;  law  for,  160;  de- 
bate in  Duma  on,  169;  results  of, 
172;  Witte  on,  181;  overthrow 
of,  189  et  seq. 

Vologda,  Bishop  of,  quoted,  73. 

Volost,  40;  72;  74. 

Voltaire,  67. 

Voniratyvskoe  Temperance  Society, 
164. 

Voronstov,  Mme.,  142. 

W 

Wahrti  Unternehmungen,  105. 

Waldemar  II.,  98. 

Wallace,  Duncan  M.,  quoted,  117; 
144. 

War  orders,  in  Finland,  93;  194. 

Warsaw,  illiteracy,  in,  34;  liquor 
destroyed  in,  174. 

Washburn,  Stanley,  quoted,  215. 

Wavrinsky,  Edward,  108. 

Weilantas,  Y.,  109. 

White  Cross,  work  of,  in  Riga, 
105  ; 106. 

Wine  prohibited,  202. 

Witchcraft,  46. 

Witte,  Sergius  Julevich,  119;  insti- 
tutes monopoly,  120;  debating 
monopoly,  181;  199;  219. 

Women,  granted  suffrage  in  Fin- 
land, 77. 

Women’s  Christian  Temperance 
Union,  in  Finland,  90. 

Workingman’s  Society  of  Uleaborg, 

86. 

Workmen’s  Compensation  acts,  57. 

Workmen’s  Insurance,  57. 

Z 

Zemstvo,  37;  38;  40. 

Zhilkin,  Ivan,  quoted,  2'05. 

Zinoviev.  M..  181. 


227 


GLOSSARY 


Brief  definitions  are  here  given  of  Russian  words  and  terms 
that  frequently  appear  in  American  books  and  newspapers. 

Arshin.  A measure  of  length,  equal  to  i6  vesrshoks,  or  2 
feet  and  4 inches. 

Boyars.  The  early  nobles,  followers  of  the  prince. 

Braga.  Home-made  beer. 

Derevnia.  A village. 

Desiatina.  A unit  of  square  measure,  amounting  to  2.7  acres. 
Dom.  A house. 

Drozhky.  A light,  open  carriage. 

Drnzhina.  Followers  or  companions  of  the  early  princes. 
Dvor.  A yard. 

Dvornik.  A janitor. 

Feldsher.  Assistant  to  a physician. 

Funt.  A measure  of  weight,  equal  to  .90281179  avoirdupois 
pounds. 

Gospodi.  The  Lord. 

Gubernia.  (Government.)  A Russian  province  correspond- 
ing to  an  American  state. 

Ikon.  A holy  image  or  picture. 

hitelligentzia.  The  intellectuals,  the  cultured  classes. 
Ispravnik.  Head  of  police  in  a town. 

Isvoschik.  A hackman. 

Izba.  A peasant  home. 

Kabak.  A drinking  shop  where  food  is  not  served.  Usually 
denotes  an  illicit  liquor  shop. 

Katorga.  A penal  colony. 

Kniaz.  A prince. 

Kobek.  One  one-hundredth  part  of  a rouble. 

Kupetz.  A merchant. 

Kvas.  A mildly  fermented  beverage  made  of  dried  bread  or 
fruit  pulp. 

Lavka.  A store.  Uusually  applied  to  a drinking  shop. 

Mir.  The  village  organization. 

Mishchane.  The  middle  class. 

Mujik.  The  Russian  peasant. 

Nagaika.  A heavy  whip,  used  by  the  Cossacks. 

Oulitza.  A street. 

Ouyezd.  A canton,  or  “county.” 

229 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM  IN  RUSSIA 


Pereoulok.  An  alley. 

Pevo.  Lager  beer. 

Pogrom.  A massacre,  or  destruction,  usually  applied  to 
massacres  of  the  Jews. 

Pood.  A measure  of  weight,  equal  to  forty  funts,  or  36.1127 
avoirdupois. 

Prospect.  An  avenue. 

Rescript.  An  Imperial  order  issued  to  a Cabinet  Minister  or 
to  the  Senate. 

Rouble.  A coin  valued  at  about  52  cents  in  the  United  States 
money. 

Sobor.  An  assembly.  Generally  used  with  the  word  Cafed- 
ralny  to  denote  a cathedral. 

S taros ta.  The  administrative  head  of  a Russian  village. 

Tchetvert.  A measure  of  capacity,  equal  to  5.95  American 
bushels. 

Tchinovnik.  A government  official. 

Traktir.  A cheap  restaurant  where  liquor  is  served  by  the 
drink. 

Troika.  A three-horse  team. 

Troitsa.  The  Trinity. 

Tsar.  The  Russian  Emperor. 

Tsarevich.  The  Crown  Prince  of  Russia. 

Tsaritsa,  or  Tsarina.  The  Russian  Empress. 

Ukase.  An  Imperial  proclamation. 

Veche.  The  assembly  of  burghers  of  early  times. 

Vedro.  A measure  of  capacity,  equal  to  2.7  Imperial  gallons, 
or  3.249  American  gallons. 

Vershok.  A measure  of  length,  equal  to  1.75  inches. 

Versta.  A measure  of  distance,  amounting  to  .6629  mile. 

Volost.  A subdivision  of  the  ouyezd. 

Yamschik.  A driver. 

Zemstvo.  A local  assembly. 


230 


mmm'. 

V: 


Date  Due 


Bura{>«  Cat  no.  iiv7 


U71L  15.1337 


"'cH 


